Variance Request Sparks Controversy Over Property Setbacks
September 03, 2024 | Pennington County, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
In a recent government meeting, the Board of Adjustment addressed several variance requests and subdivision proposals, primarily concerning properties owned by Reynolds and Livingston. The discussions centered on two significant variance applications aimed at reducing setbacks for existing structures located at 22491 Highway 385, which are currently encroaching on section line right-of-ways.
The first variance request involved a shop building that has been in place for some time but is encroaching a few feet into the right-of-way. Staff recommended denial of the request, citing a lack of special conditions that would justify the variance. However, the board ultimately approved the variance with two conditions: it would only apply to the shop building, and an encroachment agreement must be established before any further actions are taken.
The second variance request was for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that is currently situated at a zero-foot setback from the section line. Similar to the first request, staff recommended denial, but the board approved it with the condition that it only applies to the existing ADU and its attached deck, requiring all other structures to maintain proper setbacks.
Additionally, the board discussed a subdivision regulation variance to waive the requirement for a 40-foot access easement for an existing driveway, which is primarily located in Lawrence County. Staff again recommended denial, but the board approved the request without conditions, acknowledging the historical use of the driveway.
The meeting also included an appeal from Reno Gulch Self Storage regarding a variance application that was previously denied. The applicant argued against retroactive requirements for stormwater detention, stating that such regulations had not been enforced in the past. However, the board ultimately denied the appeal, emphasizing the need for compliance with current regulations to prevent potential drainage issues.
Lastly, the board approved a vacation of existing easements for a property owned by Morris Reiner, which involved no public objections and was deemed necessary for future development.
Overall, the meeting highlighted ongoing efforts to manage land use and development regulations while balancing the needs of property owners with community standards.
The first variance request involved a shop building that has been in place for some time but is encroaching a few feet into the right-of-way. Staff recommended denial of the request, citing a lack of special conditions that would justify the variance. However, the board ultimately approved the variance with two conditions: it would only apply to the shop building, and an encroachment agreement must be established before any further actions are taken.
The second variance request was for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that is currently situated at a zero-foot setback from the section line. Similar to the first request, staff recommended denial, but the board approved it with the condition that it only applies to the existing ADU and its attached deck, requiring all other structures to maintain proper setbacks.
Additionally, the board discussed a subdivision regulation variance to waive the requirement for a 40-foot access easement for an existing driveway, which is primarily located in Lawrence County. Staff again recommended denial, but the board approved the request without conditions, acknowledging the historical use of the driveway.
The meeting also included an appeal from Reno Gulch Self Storage regarding a variance application that was previously denied. The applicant argued against retroactive requirements for stormwater detention, stating that such regulations had not been enforced in the past. However, the board ultimately denied the appeal, emphasizing the need for compliance with current regulations to prevent potential drainage issues.
Lastly, the board approved a vacation of existing easements for a property owned by Morris Reiner, which involved no public objections and was deemed necessary for future development.
Overall, the meeting highlighted ongoing efforts to manage land use and development regulations while balancing the needs of property owners with community standards.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting