Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Yankton County planning panel denies Jordan Smith setback variance, cites precedent and access concerns

Yankton County Planning Commission · May 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Yankton County Planning Commission voted to deny a variance request from Jordan Smith to reduce front setbacks near Beaver Beach, saying the topography and alternatives did not meet the ordinance's hardship standard and approving would set an undesirable precedent.

The Yankton County Planning Commission voted to deny a requested setback variance from Jordan Smith, who sought to reduce front setbacks on a Beaver Beach lot to as little as 0.5 feet at one corner.

The commission's chair read the ordinance's variance criteria before deliberations, and several members said they were not convinced the application met the standards for demonstrable and exceptional hardship or that approval would avoid creating a difficult precedent for other lakefront property owners. Staff had described the request and read the legal description of the lot.

Jordan Smith, the applicant, told the commission he had explored alternatives and cited topographic constraints and winter access for equipment as hardships. "My wife is in the medical field and that position made this location particularly important to us," Smith said, explaining why moving the structure or bringing in large amounts of fill would be impractical in his view.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns: whether the adjacent lane is a dedicated, publicly maintained right-of-way; the potential for other property owners to expect similar exceptions; and whether the building could be sited elsewhere on the parcel or whether acquiring the adjacent lot would resolve the issue. One committee member suggested buying the lot immediately north to eliminate the public access that drives the setback question.

A motion to deny the variance was made and carried in a roll-call vote. The commission recorded its decision as a denial and advised Smith to explore practical alternatives, including replatting, negotiating for adjacent land, or revising the building design and placement to meet setback requirements. The commission also encouraged the applicant to return with a revised plan that addresses the cited ordinance criteria.