Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Guidance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing highlights permit‑guidance confusion; examiner stresses legal hardship standard
Summary
Petitioner says county staff told him no permit was needed for an agricultural pole barn; the hearing examiner said verbal phone advice does not override zoning rules and asked petitioners to document actual agricultural operations and tax status.
A central point at the Howard County de novo appeal hearing was whether pre‑construction phone advice relieved the petitioner of permitting obligations.
David Harrison testified he called county staff before construction and was told an agricultural building did not require a permit, prompting him to contract for construction without pulling permits. He told the examiner, "He told me I didn't need a a permit, that there was no restrictions on agriculture." The inspector who later visited Harrison’s property told him specific inspections (footer and truss) were still required and that the size exceeded the accessory‑building limit, triggering a violation notice and a variance requirement.
Hearing examiner Catherine Taylor told the petitioners that a phone conversation with county staff does not supersede the zoning regulations and that the hardship analysis requires evidence that conforming to rules imposes a hardship going forward, not merely that demolition or reworking of built noncompliance would be costly. Taylor asked for details about the hay operation, including whether the property holds an agricultural tax designation; the petitioners confirmed they have not applied for an agricultural tax exemption.
Taylor closed the record and said she would issue a written decision within approximately 30 days. The hearing included no county planner or DPZ representative to explain the earlier designee's decision on the size limit.
