Clay County BZA denies variance request for accessory dwelling unit on nearly 10-acre parcel

The Clay County Board of Zoning Adjustment voted to deny a variance request for an accessory dwelling unit on Jan. 27, 2026, after concluding the application did not meet the legal criteria for a variance and that utility delivery questions remained unresolved.

Staff introduced Case 25-141, describing a nearly 10-acre property in the R-5 district accessed from E Highway. The applicant asked to exceed the ADU footprint limit — seeking a 1,500-square-foot footprint where the land development code limits accessory dwelling unit footprints to 1,200 square feet — and to increase allowable finished living space to 1,260 square feet, above the code’s 850-square-foot cap. Staff told the board it had mailed 27 notices within a 2,000-foot radius and had not received calls expressing opposition.

Applicant Jenny Holmberg told the board the unit would house aging parents and provide safety and caregiving support while her husband is frequently away for work. "My name is Jenny Holmberg, and... my parents are getting older," she said, explaining the ADU would be tucked into wooded area to minimize visibility to neighbors.

Kent Flanders, Holmberg’s father, described existing septic capacity and said the Clay County environmental health program manager had reviewed the plan. He provided preliminary cost estimates for utilities discussed with contractors: an electric run under the road quoted at about $700–$750 plus roughly $4 per foot for additional distance, and a water connection quote of about $6,500 to run a separate line. The applicants said they had spoken with plumbers and utility providers but that some details remained to be finalized.

Board members focused on the variance criteria the applicant must meet: (1) whether the condition arises from a unique property feature, (2) whether granting the variance would harm adjacent property owners or public interest, (3) whether denial would constitute a practical difficulty for the owner, and (4) whether the variance would harm public health, safety or the comprehensive plan. Staff emphasized that under the code an ADU is treated like a new home for permitting purposes and that utilities generally must be shared with the main house; separate meters would make the unit a separate dwelling and require different approvals.

After discussion a member moved to deny the petition for Case 25-141; another member seconded. The roll-call vote was recorded as: Joanne Lawson — yes; John Carpenter — yes; Scott Wagner — aye. The motion carried and the variance was denied. The board noted the applicants could revisit the proposal if they resolve the utility delivery issues or pursue other options, such as subdivision.

The denial leaves in place the county’s current ADU limits (1,200-square-foot footprint; 850-square-foot finished living area) and clarifies that exceptions will be scrutinized against the statutory variance criteria. The board closed the item without identifying a specific pathway for immediate approval and suggested the applicants consult further with staff about utilities and permitting requirements.