Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Building Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheldon planning board declines variance for detached accessory building at 890 Prairie Trail Road
Summary
The Sheldon City Planning & Zoning Board voted to decline a requested variance that would have allowed a detached, taller accessory building at 890 Prairie Trail Road, citing long-term resale, subdivision and emergency-management concerns; the applicant was urged to consider attaching the structure or revising plans to meet code.
The Sheldon City Planning & Zoning Board on Nov. 19 declined a request to allow a detached accessory building with a requested height variance at 890 Prairie Trail Road, saying the long-term risks to neighborhood consistency and emergency access outweighed the applicant’s stated personal need.
Brandon cats, the applicant, told the board he had reduced the size and height of the proposed garage after neighbor feedback and said the structure was intended for family storage: "I really wasn't aware of the option to attach it when I filed for the variant ... I would like to go ahead with the process and make a decision based on your vote today." Board members and staff pressed him on the option to attach the building via a breezeway to make the project conform to zoning and subdivision rules.
Planning staff reminded the board that the property is subject to subdivision rules and that detached accessory buildings can create orphaned parcels over time. Staff noted the site plan shows an 8-foot side setback (greater than the five feet allowed for detached accessory structures by code) and a 30-foot front setback where 25 feet is required, but emphasized that future resale or lot splitting could create enforcement and emergency-response complications.
Several members proposed a set of conditions the board could impose if it were to approve the request: 1) pull-through parking only (no backing onto Prairie Trail), 2) a recorded owner agreement not to seek a lot split or subdivision, and 3) a restriction in the minutes limiting the building to personal storage only (no business use). Staff said the RS residential zoning does not permit commercial uses and that home-occupation rules are stringent.
After discussion about consistency with past decisions and the risk that a detached building could later be sold off or repurposed, a motion was made to decline the exception; the board took a roll-call vote and the motion carried. The board encouraged the applicant to consider attaching the accessory building to the primary dwelling or revising plans to comply with the code if he wishes to proceed.
The board’s action was procedural and final for this hearing; the applicant may return with a revised, attached design or other code-compliant proposal.
