Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances Accessory Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves small front-yard shed variance, delays decision on oversized accessory building
Summary
The board approved James Fisher’s variance for a small accessory structure and continued Roger Randolph’s request for a 2,800-square-foot accessory building to allow plan revisions and neighbor notice; the board also discussed whether lot combination or rotating the building could reduce variance scope.
The Grant County Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 3 approved a variance allowing James Fisher to place a small accessory structure in front of his residence and continued a separate request from Roger Randolph for a much larger accessory building.
James Fisher told the board the proposed shed would store recreational equipment and potentially serve as a small pump room for pond aeration. No one opposed the Fisher request; neighbor Amber Crane (also identified as Amber Smith) spoke in support. Board member Randy Atkins moved to approve Fisher’s variance; Rose Jones seconded and the board voted unanimously to grant the variance.
Roger Randolph sought a variance for an accessory building of about 2,800 square feet while the local accessory-building limit cited by staff is 960 square feet for that parcel. Randolph said he owns a vacant lot next to his house and proposed placing a large garage-like structure there. The board discussed alternatives including rotating the building on the lot, placing a residence now and/or combining the two lots (which could require the town to vacate a right-of-way). Board members noted that the size and the request to have an accessory building without a primary dwelling are significant and might require additional public notice if a second variance is added.
The board voted to continue Randolph’s request to the next meeting to allow the applicant time to regroup, explore lot-combination options or revise plans. Members also voted to waive an additional variance fee for the continuation so neighbors would receive notice and the applicant would not be charged again for the procedural continuance.
Board members closed the remaining agenda items after taking several public comments and adjourned the meeting.
