Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies variance for large detached garage after neighbor opposition
Summary
The board denied variance application 032‑25 for a large detached accessory structure at 4354 Mission Road after neighbors and counsel argued the application failed legal variance standards and appeared driven by economic convenience rather than a unique hardship.
The Nisswa Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment voted Nov. 4 to deny variance application 032‑25, which sought reduced setbacks for a proposed detached accessory building at 4354 Mission Road.
Staff said the applicant, Lakeland 5 Development LLC, proposed a 1,856‑sq‑ft detached structure with either an 11‑foot survey setback (application showed 11 ft) or an intended 15‑foot compromise; the ordinance requires a 30‑foot setback for structures exceeding 1,200 square feet. The proposal also included a limited‑use holding tank for wastewater and a landscaping and storm‑water plan; staff added a wetland delineation or no‑wetland letter would be required as a condition if approved.
Neighbor Mike Dan testified that there was no hardship to justify the variance and warned that allowing the change would harm the area’s character. "If you want to get some kind of a setback or variance, it had to be some kind of a hardship," he said. Attorney Jessica Brigman, speaking for adjacent property owners, urged denial and argued the applicant had not demonstrated the legal standards for a variance. "Placing a pole shed within 11 feet of the property line is a major deviation," Brigman said, and she stressed Minnesota law does not allow economic convenience as a legitimate basis for a variance.
The applicant, Jordan Severance, said he sought a 15‑foot setback in practical terms and described constraints including a narrowing lot and a neighboring driveway encroachment; he said a smaller building could meet the standard setback if required. Commissioners who visited the site noted existing trees and grading and discussed possible alternatives such as moving a driveway or reducing the building footprint.
On the five required variance findings, the commission agreed the application failed at least two tests — including that the owner was proposing a use not reasonably permitted by the code and that issuance would maintain the essential character of the locality — and voted to deny the application. The transcript records the outcome as a carried motion to deny; specific vote counts were not noted. The denial preserves the ordinance setback standard and signals the commission’s reluctance to approve large deviations where neighbors oppose and practical alternatives appear available.
