Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fargo Board of Adjustments denies variance request for garage at 1422 18th Avenue South
Summary
The Fargo Board of Adjustments denied a request to reduce the required 3-foot setback to 2 feet for a new detached garage at 1422 18th Avenue South on Feb. 24, 2026. Staff had recommended denial after finding two variance criteria unmet; the board’s motion to deny failed on a 3–2 roll call, and the application was ultimately denied for failure to act. The applicants were informed they may appeal to the City Commission.
The Fargo Board of Adjustments on Feb. 24, 2026 considered a variance request that would let a new detached garage at 1422 18th Avenue South encroach into the SR2 district’s required 3-foot rear and interior-side setback, reducing it to 2 feet, and ultimately denied the application.
City planning staff told the board the requested relief was not justified under the variance criteria and recommended denial. “Staff find that criteria A and C are not met,” the staff presenter said, citing the condition that there is not a physical hardship warranting variance relief. Staff noted the lot is smaller than a typical SR2 lot but said options exist for a detached garage that would meet setback rules.
The homeowners seeking the variance described practical constraints and accessibility concerns. The applicant said the existing configuration leaves roughly 10 inches of clearance when a vehicle door is opened and that replacing or attaching a garage would remove an interior bedroom. “Ten inches is not a whole lot of room to get in there,” one applicant said, adding that in Fargo winter conditions and as they age, the tighter clearance imposes hardship for getting children and grandchildren into vehicles.
Board members and staff discussed alternatives, including a longer, narrower (tandem) garage or siting a detached structure on the west side of the lot accessed from 18th Avenue. Staff said those options would likely yield similar impervious surface and that the applicants were limited by a roughly 950-square-foot buildable allowance tied to the primary structure. Board members noted a 25-by-38-foot garage would be wider and more functional for two cars but could require removing a tree and adding a boulevard approach.
During deliberations, Board member Deb (S2) moved to accept staff findings and deny the variance on the basis that review criteria in “section twenty-nine 14 E.1 A and C” were not met; the presiding officer seconded. Debate centered on whether the proposed location was the least intrusive option for neighboring properties or whether a side placement would produce a better long-term result. The roll call produced three votes against the motion and two in favor, causing the motion to fail for lack of the required affirmative votes.
With no alternative motion approved, the presiding officer announced the application would be denied due to failure to act and told the applicants they may appeal the decision to the City Commission. The board also urged the applicants to consider alternative layouts that could meet setback and coverage rules.
No final approval or amended permit was issued at the meeting; applicants were advised of the appeals process.
(Reporting note: the transcript identifies board members by name during roll call: Wendell Duff, Gunkelman, Polchinski, Orth and Love. Applicants and several staff speakers were not identified by full name in the transcript.)
