Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reno County BZA unanimously grants Helton lot-split variance despite substandard frontage
Summary
The Reno County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 7-0 June 18 to grant a variance allowing a roughly 5-acre house lot and a noncompliant parent parcel from a 71-acre farm, finding the parcel’s unusual shape and creek created a practical hardship; staff recommended two conditions including a 70-foot minimum for the remaining agricultural parcel.
The Reno County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously on June 18 to grant a variance that will allow a new house lot to be created from a roughly 71-acre agricultural parcel despite the new parent parcel falling short of the 200-foot public road frontage required by county subdivision rules. The vote followed a staff recommendation and public hearing.
County planner Mark Von Atchute, who presented the staff report, told the board the parcel’s irregular shape and the creek that bisects the property made it impractical to meet the 400 feet of frontage that would be needed to split the land into two compliant parcels. “I have found and recommend that the variance be granted,” Von Atchute said, summarizing staff’s opinion that the five legal factors for a variance were met.
The applicant, who identified himself for the record as Jay Elton, said his family has owned the land for years and that his son intends to build a house on an approximately 5-acre parcel carved from the larger tract. Elton described the remainder as hay ground used for cattle and said the family does not intend broader development now.
Von Atchute recommended approval with two primary conditions: the single-family dwelling parcel created by the split must comply with zoning and subdivision regulations (including the 200-foot frontage and 200-foot depth standards), and the remaining agricultural parcel should retain at least 70 feet of public road frontage to allow for potential future road construction. He explained the 70-foot minimum is the county’s minimum width for constructing a public road.
After the hearing and a period of commissioner questions about access, easements and whether acquiring adjacent land would be a practical solution, Commissioner [motion mover] moved the staff-suggested motion to approve case 2026-05 (Timothy and Joyce Helton Living Trust, agent Mark Helton) finding that the required variance factors were satisfied. Staff called the roll: Nisley, Strand, Schaefer, Seltzer, Macklin, Martin and Gertson all voted yes.
The board’s decision is effective immediately; the chair reminded those present that BZA decisions may be appealed to district court within 30 days and that any final action will be based on the record presented at the public hearing.
The meeting then adjourned and the Planning Commission convened to hear separate matters.
