Newton Planning Commission reapproves 100 Mockingbird Lane height variance after rehearing

The Newton Planning Commission on March 3 voted to reaffirm a variance that allows the sidewall of an accessory structure at 100 Mockingbird Lane to be 16 feet high rather than the 12 feet normally permitted.

The rehearing followed a district court remand that said the commission’s prior decision lacked sufficient findings on two required variance criteria. At the meeting the commission recorded findings on each of the five required criteria and voted to reapprove the variance “with all five findings in favor,” the commission’s motion stated.

The variance request was presented by attorney Ian Hughes on behalf of property owners Casey and Kayla Neitzel. Hughes told commissioners that most neighbors supported the request and that the proposed building is consistent with other accessory structures in the area. “You’ll hear that most of the neighbors, in fact, I think all but 1 of the neighbors are in support of the NITEL’s request,” Hughes said. Casey Neitzel described the structure as a vehicle- and equipment-storage shop and said he had paused interior work while the appeal proceeded: “I stopped 2 years ago because I’m not gonna pay for insulation and all the extra BTUs if I have to chop this thing down,” Neitzel said.

Opposing the request, attorney Greg Nye, representing the adjacent property owner, urged the commission to find two criteria unmet. Nye told the commission the Neitzels had been warned before construction that an appeal could reverse the variance and said the building did not exist at the time of the original application. “I warned them, don’t put that building up until the appeal is done because you run the chance that the judge says no,” Nye said, citing earlier communications with the applicants’ former counsel.

Commissioners discussed the five variance standards required by local code and the judge’s order. On the question of uniqueness, commissioners noted the lot’s size and setting: the property is a larger, roughly two-acre lot at the edge of town with substantial tree cover and setbacks that differ from typical R-1 parcels. One commissioner summarized: the lot is “not typical for R-1,” citing the larger lot size, country-edge context and the building’s setback well beyond the minimum.

On hardship, commissioners debated whether denying the variance would force the owner to expand the building footprint or otherwise create practical difficulties. Supporters argued that a taller structure reduces the ground footprint needed for vehicle storage and is therefore a less intrusive option than multiple low buildings or outdoor storage. Opponents countered that the owners had created circumstances by ordering and raising the building before the appeal was complete.

Public comment at the rehearing was strongly tilted toward approval. Neighbors including Colin Seabert (201 Robin Court), Brent and Ashley Trude (101 Mockingbird Lane), Charles Lamar (206 Mockingbird Lane) and others told commissioners the building improved property upkeep and neighborhood investment and did not harm views or public welfare. Several speakers said they preferred vehicles and recreational equipment stored inside a building rather than left outside.

After discussion the commission voted, on motions recorded in the minutes, to find in the affirmative on each of the five variance criteria and to reapprove the variance. The commission’s final motion, recorded by staff, directed that the board’s findings be placed in the record as required by the district court order. Commissioners noted that the district court provides a 30-day window for appeal of administrative decisions; staff also said a future city text amendment to zoning standards (including accessory-structure height) was under consideration, which could affect similar applications going forward.

The Neitzels’ attorney said the applicants will consider the ruling and any subsequent appeal. The commission’s action restores the variance and documents the factual findings the court said had been missing from the prior hearing.