Board denies after-the-fact variance for shed on Eldridge Avenue after neighbors and imagery dispute applicant’s claim

The Clay County Board of Adjustment on Aug. 28, 2025, denied an after-the-fact variance request for a shed placed in a side/front-yard area on Eldridge Avenue, voting 4-0 to deny the application (case BOA25-0010).

Staff opened the item noting the case had been continued from the prior month and that the applicant, Michael (Mike) Myers, was not present; the applicant’s authorized agent, Douglas Dixon, appeared to speak on his behalf. Staff and several neighbors told the board the key factual dispute was whether the shed had been in its current location when Myers bought the property in 2017.

Neighbor Frank Perot, sworn to speak, said he had personal knowledge of the property’s history and presented an email from his brother, Keith Perreault, stating the property was sold on March 15, 2017, “with no shed or other detached accessory buildings.” Perot said imagery and other records showed the shed was not present in 2017 but appears in later imagery.

Resident Charlene Birchell told the board she bought her property in November 2021 and that documents in the county record show code-enforcement contact and notices to the property owner in 2021. Birchell said the owner removed a shed after enforcement action and later returned a shed to the site. She submitted pictometry and MLS photos to the record to support the timeline she described.

Douglas Dixon, speaking for the applicant, characterized the request as an after-the-fact variance and said the applicant’s position was that a structure had already existed when he purchased the home. Dixon also acknowledged the structure exceeded size and siting limits for the zoning district and said that if the structure could fit in the rear yard it would alleviate setback issues.

Board members reviewed multiple points of evidence, including Google Earth and county imagery, the email from the prior owner, and code-enforcement history. A board member said they had spent hours reviewing aerial imagery and could not verify the applicant’s claim that the shed had been in the same location since 2017. The board concluded the application was an after-the-fact request without the documentary support asserted by the applicant and voted to deny BOA25-0010.

The denial means the owner must comply with prior code-enforcement directives. Staff advised code enforcement had stayed enforcement action pending the board’s decision; a denial can return the matter to active enforcement.