Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies variance allowing storage container within required setbacks
Summary
The Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously denied VAR26-0001, which would have allowed an agricultural storage structure to sit 2 ft and 7.5 ft from two property lines instead of the 21 ft required by county code. Commissioners found the variance criteria unmet and cited permitting and setback history.
The Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny VAR26-0001, a request by Carol Nielsen to reduce property-line setbacks so a storage structure could remain 2 feet from the west property line and 7.5 feet from the south property line instead of the 21 feet required under Jefferson County Code Sec. 112-263. The hearing took place Feb. 18, 2026.
Planner Jenna Huennekens described the variance request and said staff presented the code requirement for setbacks. Applicant representative Juliano Preto told the commission the structure has served agricultural storage for more than a decade, is screened by trees, has no power, water, or sewer, and that the owners were willing to accept conditions such as painting the structure. "We aren't asking for a building permit; we are asking for a variance," Preto said.
Neighbor Alan Steinke opposed the request, telling commissioners that the required 21-foot setback exists for a reason and that the applicants should have obtained permits when the structures were first placed. "There is a reason Planning and Zoning has these measurements," Steinke said, adding that property owners should not be rewarded for failing to get permits.
Commissioners debated whether the structure qualified as an agricultural building and whether the variance criteria in Section 112-98 were satisfied. Several commissioners said they found no legal basis to grant the variance. Lacy Barney moved to deny the variance and Sean Priest seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
The denial was procedural: commissioners characterized the request as failing to meet statutory variance criteria rather than imposing penalties on neighbors. The applicant may pursue other remedies, but no permit that would legalize the structure within the reduced setbacks was granted at the hearing.
