Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neosho board postpones variance decision for 817–819 Mary Avenue pending survey
Summary
The Neosho City board heard a variance appeal from Thomas Brothers LLC for two Mary Avenue parcels and voted unanimously to postpone a decision until a professional boundary survey clarifies lot lines and setbacks.
The Neosho City board on a voice roll call voted to postpone action on a variance request for 817 and 819 Mary Avenue after staff and neighbors said a professional survey is needed to confirm lot lines.
Adam Wooster of the City of Neosho’s development services staff told the board the applicable ordinance requires a 70-foot frontage and that the subject parcel’s actual frontage measures about 61.5 feet while the lot area is roughly 9,150 square feet; he also said building permits had been issued in error by staff. The variance appeal was filed by Thomas Brothers LLC to split the property back to its original plat configuration.
Applicant Jennifer Thomas, who was sworn to speak, said she and others bought the property when it was platted as three lots, remodeled one house and later built two houses on what they believed were separate platted lots. She told the board she relied on the plat when building and said she and the title company had not commissioned a new survey before construction.
A nearby representative identified in the record as affiliated with Habitat indicated part of a driveway appears to be on an adjacent lot and said Habitat would deed roughly 10 feet to resolve the encroachment. Board members repeatedly urged that a professional boundary survey be completed to establish corners and exact setbacks before the board makes a final determination.
During board discussion under the variance item, a member moved to postpone the decision until a survey clarifies how the houses lie relative to the lot lines; the motion was seconded and passed on roll call with the following recorded votes: Jacob Evans — yes; Tom Pellegrin — yes; Brett Smith — yes; Chairman Williams — yes. The board directed staff to schedule a follow-up meeting as soon as the applicant provides the survey and noted that an additional public hearing would not be necessary.
The board also admitted eight exhibits into the record related to the petition. The meeting adjourned after the scheduling discussion.
What happens next: The variance hearing will be rescheduled after the applicant submits a professional boundary survey; the board’s postponement leaves no formal approval or denial on the record.
