Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables zoning‑clearance request for Rod Butters' accessory building pending code clarifications
Summary
The commission tabled a zoning‑clearance request from Rod Butters for an accessory structure at 9 South Main while staff checks setback, variance and building‑permit requirements.
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Clarkston Planning Commission on Aug. 2025 tabled consideration of a zoning‑clearance request from Rod Butters for an accessory building at 9 South Main after commissioners and staff identified uncertainty about setback and permit requirements.
Butters described the structure as roughly 9 by 18 feet and about 8 to 9 feet tall. He told the commission he would prefer to attach the new structure to an existing garage. “I would like to attach it to the current structure,” Butters told the commission.
Staff and commissioners discussed whether an attached addition would trigger a building permit because the addition could push gross structure area above the town—s 200‑square‑foot threshold and whether a variance would be required because the structure would encroach on a 30‑foot setback. Commissioners referenced local setback rules and accessory‑building rules in the municipal code (Title 10, Chapter 7) and noted the code addresses accessory buildings that are at least 10 feet behind a primary building but does not clearly specify distance requirements between accessory buildings placed in front of the primary dwelling.
Because the code did not clearly resolve whether attaching the structure or siting it a foot from the existing garage would require a building permit and/or a variance, the commission voted to table the request. A commissioner moved to table the item until staff could provide further clarification and retrieve applicable building‑permit and setback requirements; that motion carried unanimously.
The applicant indicated that if a building permit were required he might choose not to proceed, and staff agreed to follow up with specific guidance on permit fees, building‑permit valuation rules and any variance procedures that would apply.
