Planning and Zoning grants contingent approval for Greg Dunn’s accessory building after resident questions setbacks

The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission approved an accessory building permit for Greg Dunn at 565 East Platte Lane on April 1, 2026, but made the decision contingent on confirming whether a deeded county right‑of‑way crosses the property.

The permit petition came after resident Daniel T. Hardy asked the commission for clarity about building a large shop on two combined lots and whether setbacks and living‑quarter rules would bar construction or complicate a future primary house. "I just want to get some thoughts before I go to the expense of getting plans totally drawn up," Hardy said, asking whether bathrooms, showers or beds would change a shop’s classification.

Commissioners and staff told Hardy that under the town code an accessory structure without a primary dwelling generally faces tighter restrictions: an accessory shop may be allowed 5 feet from side property lines, but a building that contains a bedroom or other living quarters must meet larger dwelling setbacks (30 feet). Staff noted an existing small shed on the parcel appeared to be grandfathered but warned that tying a new building structurally to a grandfathered structure could require a new permit and change its status.

Staff explained options: apply for a variance (the variance application fee is $100), build a minimal primary dwelling first and then the accessory building, or design the shop without living quarters. "All we can do is follow the code," staff said, adding that successful variance approvals typically include a signed condition that prevents using the structure as a dwelling.

When commissioners reviewed Greg Dunn’s application—described in staff materials as roughly 50 by 25 feet—they raised a separate concern: a commissioner noted a proposed future road in the town’s traffic/master plan that may run along the west side of the Dunn parcel. If the road is later established and the shop sits 5 feet from the property line, it could end up close to a future public right‑of‑way.

To avoid creating a conflict with future circulation plans, the commission amended its approval: it approved the accessory building permit conditionally, pending staff verification of any deeded right‑of‑way with the county. The motion to approve the permit with that contingency was made, seconded and passed with members voting in the affirmative.

The commission directed staff to check county records and the town’s traffic master plan and return with a confirmation or, if necessary, the applicant will be asked to revise the site plan. The meeting record does not show a formal roll‑call tally; the approval was recorded as an affirmative action by the commission.