Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Property owner wins lot‑line variance for 616 Pleasant Drive in Sheldon City

Sheldon City Board of Adjustment · October 8, 2025
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 Sheldon City Board of Adjustment granted a variance allowing LT Property Management to reorganize three small parcels at 616/618 Pleasant Drive into two lots; the applicant said the change will not increase nonconformity and neighbors provided written support.

Corey Elgresma, partner in LT Property Management, told the Sheldon City Board of Adjustment he wants to reorganize three parcels at 616 and 618 Pleasant Drive into two lots to "clean up those lot lines," and that the resulting parcels would remain non‑conforming under the city's zoning rules.

Mr. Elgresma said the properties were bought out of foreclosure, that he has refurbished the house and garages and that the reconfiguration will keep two non‑conforming lots rather than creating a new non‑conformity. "I think it's a win‑win," he told the board, adding that he plans to maintain the lot and later return to request a special exception if he pursues building a garage.

The request centered on a code requirement the applicant cited: frontage of 100 feet and 10,000 square feet per lot in the applicable commercial‑residential zone. Mr. Elgresma said his three current parcels include a six‑foot sliver and that reorganizing the lines will leave two lots similar in status to other non‑conforming lots in Sheldon. He presented signed neighbor letters supporting the change and confirmed buyers of the house have been briefed on lot dimensions.

Zoning staff noted that future construction on the remaining lot could require a separate special‑exception application to the board, and the record included a supportive comment filed by Brandon Katz. After brief questions from board members about survey recording and future requests, a board member moved to grant the variance; the motion passed by roll call vote.

The board approved the variance; the record shows the approval is limited to the lot‑line reconfiguration presented and that any future structural work will be subject to applicable permits and, if needed, separate board review.