Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies request for first‑floor apartment in variance hearing; staff had recommended approval
Summary
At a Jan. 27 Board of Adjustment hearing, the Huron City Commission denied a variance tied to a proposal that included a first‑floor apartment. City staff had recommended approval of the setback variance related to a proposed addition at 1940 Riverview Drive; the applicants were told they may pursue second‑floor apartments with a building permit.
Huron — Jan. 27, 2025 — The Huron City Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, voted to deny a request that would have allowed a first‑floor apartment tied to a proposed addition at 1940 Riverview Drive.
City Planner Berry Cranston told the board the applicants, Jonathan and Callie Wachter, requested an addition that would sit 15 feet from the rear lot line and that the hearing examiner, the building inspector and planner had recommended approval. “The building inspector also recommended approval and myself,” Cranston said.
Neighbors who spoke said the house is already nonconforming and that further encroachment would harm privacy and property values. “Basically, it’s too close already,” resident Theo Brewer said, adding he had “great reservations” about reducing the distance to the lot line. Brewer also asked whether the proposed spacing met fire‑safety standards; the building inspector, Gail, replied, “For the record, it does.”
Commission discussion centered on the proximity of structures, neighborhood character and precedent. A motion to deny the request was made and seconded; the motion carried on a roll‑call vote recorded as all ayes.
After the vote, staff clarified the commission’s action. “The motion on the floor was to deny the request to put an apartment on the Main Floor,” a city staffer said. The staff member added the applicants could still apply for a building permit to create apartments on the second floor.
The applicants were present but offered no public rebuttal during the hearing. No further conditions or amendments were recorded in the meeting minutes.
