The most notable topic discussed was the property located at 31162 Spring Loop. The commission addressed the issue of an unpermitted garage positioned too close to the property line. The current homeowners, who acquired the property in May, were unaware of this violation. The garage, constructed by the previous owner without the necessary permits, now posed a problem for the new owners. The commission expressed sympathy for the homeowners, noting that they were victims of circumstances beyond their control. Given the legal limitations, it was suggested that the homeowners apply for an after-the-fact variance to correct the setback discrepancy. The commission acknowledged that the setback should be 30 feet, but the garage currently sat just 20 feet from the property line. The process of securing this variance was expected to cost approximately $250.

The discussion also highlighted how the issue came to light. Neighbors had reported the violation, and the area had seen increased scrutiny due to various activities and disturbances, including unauthorized use of campers. The commission considered the broader implications of approving such variances, expressing concern about potentially encouraging future violations if proper procedures were not enforced. A member remarked on the importance of setting a precedent that discouraged construction without permits, emphasizing the need for adherence to established guidelines.

In a separate matter, the commission conducted a public hearing regarding a conditional use application submitted by Matt Jutman. Jutman sought permission to build a 1,040 square foot accessory building on his property on County Road 11. The proposed structure would add to the existing accessory buildings, bringing the total to 1,568 square feet. The property, zoned R2 medium residential, allowed for such construction under specific conditions.

Jutman presented his proposal, detailing plans for a cold storage building with no plumbing or septic systems. He assured the commission that the building would match the aesthetic of his home, with dark bronze log siding and black accents. Questions arose about the building’s height and compliance with setback requirements. Jutman confirmed that his site plan adhered to the necessary setbacks and that a survey was deemed unnecessary due to the ample size of his 1.86-acre lot. The commission evaluated the proposal according to city codes and found it aligned with zoning regulations.

The commission imposed several conditions for approval, including obtaining a building permit, adhering to setback regulations, and ensuring design compatibility with the principal structure. The public hearing concluded with no objections from the attendees, and the commission unanimously approved the application.