Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies rear-yard variance for Pleasant Lake Circle property

Dickinson County Board of Adjustment · May 26, 2026
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 Dickinson County Board of Adjustment denied a requested 15-foot rear-yard variance for a three-lot lakeshore property at 16744 Pleasant Lake Circle, citing topography and neighbor concerns; the vote was 4–1 with Commissioner Susan Clark the lone vote in favor.

The Dickinson County Board of Adjustment voted 4–1 on May 26 to deny a requested rear-yard variance for property at 16744 Pleasant Lake Circle in Pleasant Acres Township.

Applicant Jed Siegwarth told the board the property’s steep banks and a 1970s lot layout leave only a small buildable envelope across three lots, and that mature trees and a required 100-foot drain-field setback from the lake constrained site layout. “the steep banks and topographical challenge that is presented is the reason for the 3 lots in a buildable envelope is small as the lots were designed in 1970’s,” Siegwarth said. Planning staff told the board septic approval has not yet been granted and a separate review by the Board of Health will be required if the application were approved.

Board member Kirby Berhow moved to grant a rear-yard setback of 10 feet where 25 feet is required (a 15-foot variance); Westerman seconded. The board’s recorded vote was Susan Clark — yes; Alex Oponski, Douglas Westerman, Jeff Ashland and Kirby Berhow — no, resulting in denial. During public comment, neighbor Don Mittelstadt presented a map and said he had attempted to resolve boundary and cul-de-sac issues with the applicant before the variance was filed; the applicant’s co-owner, Gary Siegwarth, disputed that account.

The board discussed alternatives including lot consolidation and legal steps to alter the cul-de-sac; staff clarified that replating is not required to install a well but that setback rules still apply. If denied, staff said the applicant may reapply after 90 days.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 012, topfinish SEG 028