Officials approve 15‑foot setback variances after barn found on city land

Municipal meeting participants voted to approve 15‑foot setback variances after finding portions of a new barn owned by Wade Anderson encroached on city property, participants said. The vote followed measurements and a lengthy discussion about earlier variance language, visibility and safety at a nearby stop sign, and whether the structure must be moved or demolished.

Meeting members said field measurements showed the barn extended onto city land. Member 4, a meeting participant, said, "There's 5 feet on city property," and added that the whole west side of the barn runs across the municipal strip. Member 3, a meeting participant, described differences between what the minutes and a follow‑up letter said about the earlier variance, noting the minutes referenced a 13‑to‑16‑foot range while the letter sent to the owner referenced 15 feet.

The discussion centered on three technical points: (1) the barn’s west wall sits about 5 feet onto city property; (2) the north edge appears to be at or very near the property line and in some places aligns with the remaining portion of the old barn footprint; and (3) the town’s usual front/roadside setback is 35 feet, which participants said had been mentioned only briefly in the earlier meeting. Member 2, a meeting participant, said the face of the building needed to be 35 feet from the road; others pointed out the variance previously granted for the north side had allowed a narrower setback (discussed in the minutes as 13–16 feet and referenced as 15 feet in the letter to the property owner).

Speakers raised safety and precedent concerns. Several participants said the barn and associated piles of gravel and parked trailers near the pavement reduce sight distance at the stop sign and create potential hazards for drivers and cyclists. One participant noted the owner had dumped material onto the municipal strip and occasionally parked vehicles and trailers near the road edge, which amplified safety concerns.

Members debated whether the rebuilt structure could be treated as matching the existing footprint and thus be grandfathered, with Member 1, a meeting participant, noting that a structure left intact might have been grandfathered but that altering or rebuilding commonly voids grandfathered status. Others said the new construction could not rely on the old footprint if the project changed the building footprint.

Members discussed remedies and enforcement. Options raised included: requiring the owner to move the building back to meet the granted setback, requiring removal of the encroaching walls, accepting a variance only for the north side, levying a fine (one speaker said the owner had offered $10,000 but had not paid), or treating the new structure as matching the old footprint if documentation supported that position. Member 5, a meeting participant, argued consistency with prior variances was important to avoid claims of favoritism.

After debate, a motion to grant 15‑foot setback variances on the affected sides was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. Member 3, a meeting participant, called for the vote; multiple participants responded "Aye," and the motion passed.

The meeting record shows participants asked staff to confirm the property pins and right‑of‑way lines (several speakers recommended relying on physical survey pins rather than county GIS overlays) and to ensure any written variance or letter accurately reflected the setback authorized. Participants also noted a simple pin set could cost as little as about $200, while a full survey would cost more.

The decision leaves outstanding implementation questions: whether the owner will relocate the offending walls, remove the structure, or pursue other remedies; whether enforcement measures (fines or required demolition) will be applied if the owner does not comply; and whether the town will revise its communication to applicants who receive variances to avoid similar confusion.

Votes at a glance: the motion to approve 15‑foot variances on the affected sides of the property passed by voice vote (all present voted in favor, motion declared passed by the presiding meeting participant).

Because the action affects municipal property and public sight lines, participants said staff should follow up with a confirmed boundary survey and clear written instructions to the property owner about the approved setback, next steps and any timelines for compliance.