Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neosho City board approves variance changing frontage on three lots after survey review
Summary
The Neosho City planning board approved a variance altering frontage measurements on Lots 10, 11 and 12 after accepting new survey exhibits; board members flagged porch encroachment and promised ordinance changes to require clearer survey/site-plan documentation.
The Neosho City planning board voted to approve a variance adjusting the frontage dimensions of three lots in Block 10 after reviewing new survey exhibits and hearing testimony from the property owner.
The motion, presented by an attending board member and seconded by another, approved the frontage measurements shown on the submitted survey: Lot 10 at 60 feet, Lot 11 at 52.16 feet, and Lot 12 at 67.3 feet. Tom Pellegrin cast the sole dissenting vote; the motion otherwise carried by roll call.
David Kennedy, sworn in as a representative of the property owner, told the board that both the developer and the city share responsibility for earlier title and parcel errors and said the city is planning “new policies, new ordinances” to require more-complete surveys and clarify measurement points. Kennedy said, “Surveys have to be complete,” and indicated city staff and the owner would work together on updates to permitting forms and procedures.
City staff member Richard (who responded to board questions on the application) said staff focused on lot width and that, based on the submitted survey, the side setoffs and other qualifications were met “with the exception of the lot width” and that porches were the remaining unresolved encroachment issue.
Several board members pressed on how setbacks are measured and whether porches count toward setback calculations. The board discussed that the city currently requires a site plan for building permits rather than a formal survey, and staff noted that requiring surveys would raise homeowner costs (an average survey was said to cost about $700). Pellegrin warned the board that permitting narrow separations—he described some house separations as “15 feet” apart—could create fire-safety concerns and effectively require rated firewalls.
Before the variance vote the board accepted two new documents into the record: a county GIS map showing the lot split and the property survey (identified as exhibits 9 and 10). The acceptance of those exhibits was approved by unanimous roll-call vote.
The board’s final vote on the variance was recorded by roll call. Pellegrin voted No. Brett Smith, Bill Williams, Jacob Evans and Chairman Sam Major voted Yes. Following the vote the chair declared the motion carried.
The board and staff noted the decision is tied to the specific survey and configuration before them; staff said they would confirm legal technicalities with the city attorney. Chair Sam Major indicated the board will rely on forthcoming ordinance and form updates to reduce similar future variances.
The meeting concluded after the board handled final business and moved to adjourn.
