Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves 3-foot side setback for Treasure Point property despite staff recommendation
Summary
The Clay County Board of Adjustment on July 24 approved a variance reducing a side setback from 7.5 feet to 3 feet for a property on Treasure Point Road so the owner can park a 40-foot recreational vehicle; staff had recommended a 5-foot setback.
The Clay County Board of Adjustment voted 2–1 on July 24 to grant a variance (BOA25-0007) allowing a property owner to reduce the side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 3 feet to accommodate a pole barn for an RV at 2270 Treasure Point Road.
Jenny Bridal, Zoning Chief for Clay County, told the board the parcel sits in the AR zoning district and in the Lake Asbury Rural Community land-use area and is about 1.55 acres. Bridal said the property is roughly 110 feet wide at the street and extends about 455 feet. She described the applicant’s request as a variance “to allow for reduction in the side setback from 7 and a half feet to 3.” Bridal told the board staff found “no hardship with the land” and that the applicant already has an oversized garage; she said staff recommended approval only to a 5-foot setback rather than the requested 3 feet to be consistent with the Lake Asbury plan.
Applicant Christopher John Chapman told the board the proposed pole barn is intended to shelter a motorhome he described as nearly 40 feet long. “It makes it very tight,” Chapman said, describing tight clearances around an existing well and the house. He told the board he can maneuver the RV but that the extra clearance matters because he does not want to damage the vehicle.
Board members discussed site constraints and neighborhood pattern of accessory structures. One board member said multiple homes in the subdivision had built accessory structures with similar lot configurations and noted a neighbor submitted a letter of no objection. After discussion, a board member moved to approve the requested 3-foot setback; another board member seconded. The motion carried 2–1; the chair voted no. The board approved the variance despite staff’s recommendation for a 5-foot setback.
Staff and the applicant were directed to note the constrained working clearance and the need for careful construction and placement. No additional conditions were recorded in the transcript beyond the approved setback.
The Board of Adjustment also approved minutes for May 22 and June 26 earlier in the meeting.
