Bismarck board grants variance to let homeowners rebuild two Meadowview Drive decks

The Bismarck Board of Adjustments on an evening vote granted a variance that lets homeowners Lois Ely and Todd Ely rebuild two existing decks at their property south of Bismarck along Meadowview Drive.

The board's finding centered on a hardship caused when city extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETA) was extended over the property and the home's legal description remains a meets-and-bounds parcel rather than a platted lot. Planning staff told the board the house was built in 1974, the parcel is 2.19 acres (the rural residential minimum is 1.5 acres), and the zoning ordinance adds extra criteria for unplatted lots. Staff also reported that 63 letters were mailed to nearby owners on Nov. 22 to notify the public of the request.

Planning staff told the board the request is to reconstruct two existing decks, one of which will be partially covered, and that the proposal is treated as a building addition under the code. Building official Bluskowski told the panel he reviewed the ordinance and said the property's meets-and-bounds legal description means reconstruction or additions must meet the ordinance criteria; "they actually would not meet the criteria," he said when asked whether an identical rebuild would be allowed without satisfying the listed requirements.

Homeowner Lois Ely described the previous deck as deteriorating and unsafe: "It was definitely getting to the point where it was unsafe," she said, and said the family had removed the old decking and chosen a new, lower-maintenance design. The Elys said they have owned the property since 2012 and that, after asking the county about an auditor's lot, the county staff told them auditor lots are for tax purposes and would not be issued to solve the building-permit issue.

Board members questioned whether rebuilding the ‘‘same footprint''' after damage would avoid the variance process; staff and the building official said because of the parcel's legal description the variance/permit standards apply. One board member who moved approval framed the hardship as resulting from the ETA extension: not granting relief would prevent the owners from maintaining the property in a safe, usable manner.

The motion to approve—finding special circumstances and that strict application of the ordinance would deprive the owners of reasonable use—was moved, seconded, and passed on a roll call in which all present voted yes. The board announced the variance has a construction window; staff said the time limit is 24 months to begin the work and advised the owners to consult staff if they approach the deadline.

The board closed the hearing and adjourned after noting a potential Jan. 2 meeting; no further items were before the panel.