Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Prague homeowner appeals enforcement over 2-foot larger front landing; council tables decision
Summary
Matthew Egan told the City Council his newly rebuilt front landing is only 24 inches wider than the prior deck and that required surveys and variance costs (about $4,000) make compliance burdensome; staff said a survey is typically required for variance applications; council tabled the appeal for staff follow-up.
Matthew Egan told the New Prague City Council that his recently rebuilt front landing and stairs at 305 Fourth Street NE measure 4 feet deep by 8 feet wide, 24 inches wider than the previous 4-by-6 landing, and that he built it intending to apply for a permit in spring.
"The difference in dimensions from the old landing to this new one is a mere 24 inches," Egan said, adding that he removed the prior landing in December 2023 and expected to rebuild in the spring. He said a county survey would cost upward of $4,000, making a variance application unaffordable for a small project.
City staff member Josh summarized the file for the council and said staff notified Egan in May that his building permit had been denied because the new landing appeared larger than the footprint shown in a 2013 Google Street View image. Josh told the council that, under the city’s practices, a variance application generally requires a property survey so the city can verify dimensions when a request seeks relief from the code.
Council members questioned whether a survey is always required for relatively small variances and whether the Planning Commission would likely have permitted the change. One council member said he could not recall similar variance requests that required a $4,000 survey for minimal increases. Josh and other staff cautioned that application rules and legal requirements (and the absent planner Ken’s input) needed confirmation.
Rather than decide the appeal that night, the council voted to table the matter until a future meeting when planning staff or the city attorney could be present to clarify whether exceptions or alternative procedures are available and to discuss possible options for Mr. Egan.
The council’s tabling motion passed by voice vote. Staff said they would work with Mr. Egan to schedule the item for the next meeting and provide the requested clarity.
