00:00:05,070	Board Member Jansen. Board member Seifert, your board member Lee here and Chair Clark here. Great. Thank you. We do have a quorum today. Um, let’s move to the second item on the agenda, and we’ve got the public comments. I don’t think we’ve got anyone from the public here to make any comments on last, last month’s meeting.

00:00:31,170	So we’ll, we’ll both open and close that. The next item on the agenda, item number 3, is approval of the meeting minutes from the January meeting. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? I would entertain a motion to, uh, approve the minute as distributed unless there are any corrections.

00:00:53,100	I will so move Second, we’ve got a motion in a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. Let’s take the role on that. Board member Lee Yes Seifert. Yes. Jansen, Yes Wengler, Clark, yes. OK, um let’s jump into item number 4, which is our variance request. So Jenny, present that for us? Thank you Good evening. Chair Clark and board members.

00:01:41,800	Henry and Lisa Micke is Micke the mic on? How about now? All right. Perfect. I can tell now. Thank you, Chair Clark board members, Henry and Lisa Gerving are requesting approval of a variance from Section 14031b4 of the city code of Ordinances incidental uses, Accessory uses, and buildings.

00:02:02,170	To increase the area of accessory buildings from 1200 square feet to 1320 square feet. Uh, 1200 square foot accessory building was constructed on this property in 2024 and if approved, the applicants intend to construct a 12 0 square foot shed on the property as well.

00:02:22,600	The public has been notified of this request, 43 letters were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on January 26th. Additionally, a sign providing information on the public hearing was placed in a publicly accessible spot at the proposed at the project location or on the, on the boulevard in front of the property on January 26th as well.

00:02:39,970	We have received one written comment that was sent to you prior to this evening’s meeting. Staff also received one phone call, um, inquiry from an adjacent property owner. Pursuant to Section 140602 of the city code of Ordinances, the Board of Adjustment may vary or adjust.

00:03:02,370	Strict application of any requirements of the zoning ordinance in case of an exceptionally irregular, narrow, shallow, or steep lot or other exceptional physical or topographical conditions by reason of which the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of reasonable use of land or building involved, but in no other case.

00:03:20,630	No adjustment in the strict application of any provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be granted by the Board of Adjustments unless it finds the following that there are special circumstances or conditions that apply to the land or buildings that do not generally apply to land or buildings within this neighborhood and have not resulted from in any act of the applicant that the strict

00:03:37,630	application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of said land or building, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of land or building and that the variances granted by the board is the minimum variance that will accomplish relief sought by the applicant.

00:03:55,170	Finally, that the granting of the variants would be in harmony with a general purpose with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise. detrimental to the public welfare.

00:04:16,000	The applicant has submitted a written statement statement that identifies their anticipated hardship and explains why they believe the variant should be granted. This document was included in your packet. If you choose to approve the variances as proposed, staff ask that you identify a hardship and modify the review of standards or findings outlined in your staff report to support your decision.

00:04:35,170	Do you have questions? Q I do Uh I’m just going to sum them, put them together Uh, has there been con, uh, correspondence with the applicant. regarding this matter and um how many times and what kind of content. in the dialogue back and forth if there was. Board member Jansen, um, the applicant is is online here today.

00:04:58,230	They’ve received notification letters and applicant letters, which we call them, telling them of this particular request. Our inspections department also worked with them during the construction of the home as well as the accessory building.

00:05:23,800	Now the applicant is uh stated also that he did not need a permit for this because of the size of the building, is that correct? Yes. That’s a great question, um, board member Cifer, board members, um, the building inspections department does not require a building permit for buildings that are 120 square feet or less. However, those buildings need to still comply with the zoning ordinance.

00:05:44,630	And this is because the, the, the lot size, he’s, he’s filled up his lot Another really good question, um No, the limit for accessory buildings in this particular zoning district are City R5 zoning District is limited to 1200 square feet regardless of how big your lot is. thank you I Um this is not in the ETA. right? That is correct.

00:06:11,370	Board memberber Wrangler, um, and I know the city is, is redoing some of their ETA numbers. uh, to more align with the county. Are they talking about doing any type of realignments within the city of Bismarck. at this time? No, not at this time.

00:06:35,900	Um, with our current LDC, I believe the maximum requirement or the maximum allotted accessory building for properties that are inside City limit residential properties is still going to remain at 1200 square feet. regardless of the size of the lot. That is correct. This is actually a double line It is. It’s two lots that were combined to create one parcel, so we treat the parcel as one.

00:06:56,630	Do you know, are they doing a concrete floor in this or is that their plan? I mean, it, it, it seems to me like to protect the well 10 by 12 is a pretty good sized building. I think it becomes more than just a well protection building.

00:07:15,900	We remember the petitioner you on, on the line so we will have an opportunity to. Ask those questions Just as a note, I did not receive a copy.

00:07:35,170	I did not see the copy of the public comment is, do we have a copy of that anywhere that I could look at? Um, I will be able to get it to you. I’m sorry, it was emailed this morning, I believe, did OK. scroll down. Thank you OK, any additional questions for staff.

00:08:01,270	I’m not sure if this is for staff or the applicant, but this property was that always city water, was that annexed in? Sure, this property is in a subdivision called Clear Sky Edition. It’s inside city limits. It’s provided water and sewer from the city of Bismarck, yep. Any additional questions Thank you.

00:08:39,170	Thank you OK, let’s, um open this up for comments by the Petitioner by, is it, do we have Henry or Lisa Jervig on the line Henry Gering is here, ma’am. Girving. Thank you. Will you introduce yourself, please, and we’d love to hear your comments on this. Hi, my name is Henry Gerving. I live at 602 M Mor Drive. Um. I love the neighborhood. Um love everything about the place.

00:09:04,230	Um, my comments are, I bought my house as a pre prefabbed or spec home Um, found the lot next to me vacant and uh contacted the owner. He happened to be the same individual that built my house.

00:09:25,100	And so he said he would sell me the lot as long as my, what my intentions were. I told him that I wanted to build a shop. He said, OK um, we designed a 40 by 50 shop. because the next paragraph down below the paragraph that Jenie referenced, um, uses a formula that uh actually called for the percentage of um the property that allows different sized buildings.

00:09:49,170	Um, initially, the staff in Bismarck applied that, so that was kind of confusing. Um, and now, I didn’t work with the city of Bismarck Um, my contractor, Tim Ruuchech worked with the city.

00:10:12,600	Um, so we, we designed the building and unfortunately or fortunately for me, there was a timing gap because we designed the building I contacted the well drillers. The well drillers had uh the, the ability to come out and drill a well. Initially, that structure or the well was supposed to be inside the shock. Um after I had the weld dug, Mr.

00:10:31,270	Rush contacted the city, submitted the building permit and that’s when we found that there was a 1200 square foot limit. Um, at the time, I was literally told that there was no way that I could get a variance or I could create a larger building. So we complied with that and we built it. Um, the, well, is on a 5x5 concrete pad.

00:10:53,170	um, and you, you are correct. Um 10 by 12 is a little bit larger than I need to protect the well. Um, but I decided since I was gonna need a variance for any structure that I built. I would build it as big as I could.

00:11:10,230	And uh so once we decided that we were going to build the shop and we bought the lots. That’s when we had to combine the parcels and uh so that again, Mr. Rouch took care of all that. I was not involved even though there’s several times that I talked to Mark or Mr. Kearns.

00:11:27,330	uh, about this to try and figure out what was going on because Mr. Rushch had kind of run into some snags and found out some of the ordinances as well. So I’m kind of a third party on, on the ordinances and how they work.

00:11:45,100	Um, it is, it is my fault that I didn’t contact the city and find this out myself. Um, and, you know, take care of this upfront. Um you know, the, the structure that I plan on building. will look exactly like the rest of the structures. Um, it will actually enhance the neighborhood and not I’m, I’ve, I’ve no desire to put up a tin shed or anything like that.

00:12:09,000	So subject to your questions, that’s all I have, board members, Chair, Chairwoman, sorry, thank you. I have a question for you. One of the requirements when we evaluate these variance requests is that what’s being requested is the minimum required to accomplish what you’re trying to do.

00:12:32,070	So when you say that you’re building that you’re asking for is bigger than you need, would you be able to build this, uh, smaller building and still accomplish what you’re trying to do? The, the answer is yes, but uh as, as I put in the, a request for a variance. Um, one thing that I found out, and again, this is a learning process.

00:12:49,100	Um, when they dug the well at 65 ft they hit water, but it was rusty. The well driller said that I would get really good water at 125 ft.

00:13:05,230	Well, we do have really good water cause we, we went to 125 ft However, um, that has a high mineral content and so now I need to put in a water purification system. Um, it’s, it’s about 5 ft by 3 ft by 18 inches deep. And so to access that and change the filters. it would be better that the building was larger than just a 5x5.

00:13:26,970	Um, the 5x5 just to protect the well would not allow me to access the water purification system. And I could house it entirely in a 10 by 12 building. OK, thank you. And access it easily. I’m sorry. Thank you. We have additional questions for the petitioner. Now, just get straight.

00:13:50,530	Not this well is only for watering your lawn, correct? That is correct, sir board member Just a side note here wealth thing, I guess, um. I’m not sure why the well has to be covered. with a building Um, I’ve had several places with wells and, and to maintain maintenance on them. you have to be able to pull everything out straight.

00:14:21,370	to replace the glands and all kinds of things, so I’m a little puzzled at that aspect, but I’m not sure uh, if it’s just your softener thing that you’re concerned about.

00:14:41,730	So, um it, it is the softener thing, but right now I also uh because I drain the well or I blow out the entire system in the fall. I dis I disconnect the uh pressure tank. and uh the softener system hasn’t been installed because I literally have no place to mount it.

00:15:00,970	Um, so the reason that I’m saying that I want to enclose the well so that I don’t have to disconnect the pressure tank just to move it inside of another structure. and then it would also um house the uh purification system. Thank you. Additional questions. I have actually, I have a question for staff Do you know how many private wells we have within the city limits.

00:15:32,900	Are there a lot? Are there not very many? Um, we, we, I guess we don’t permit wells, so I mean, I’ve, I wouldn’t even want to guess as to how many we have. I’m sure there, there are some out there, um, but yeah. Thank you. Any additional questions for the pet petitioner? Hearing none, thank you very much, Mr.

00:16:00,170	Gerving, is that right Yes, ma’am. Yes, Chairwoman. OK. Um I think what we’ll do now is we will open the hearing for public comment and I don’t think we’ve got anyone here in the public, we don’t have anyone online, do we? OK, seeing no one here, we will close the comment period on

00:16:27,900	this, and we will have the board consider the variance request before it. As I say, every meeting if there is a motion that we entertain to grant the variants, I would request that you clarify the elements and the hardships. I’ll make a motion to deny OK, we’ve got a motion to deny.

00:18:02,500	Do we have a second on that motion? I will second that motion OK, we’ve got an opportunity for discussion on that. I guess I tend to agree because I, I know he, maybe I missed something, but when he built that shop, why wasn’t the pressure tank and all that put in there.

00:18:29,070	Um-hum. Into that building he just built. Um. and I guess for watering the lawn, I guess I don’t, maybe I’m wrong, don’t know anything about minerals in the water and that, but if that would hurt the lawn or what, but I think one of the things that we are held to as a board is

00:18:53,170	evaluating whether the circumstances that come before us are of the making of the petitioner. or whether they’re subjected to something that was created by somebody else. And I think that goes to that, to that point. And I don’t really see a hardship you know. My question on that would be, is that he said they originally planned it.

00:19:15,530	30 bay or uh 40 by 50 ft building. um and was gonna put everything inside that. Um-hum. And whether that was the city that Pa rush and I, I know the builder. and I know most of his work was done in Lincoln. I don’t.

00:19:41,700	don’t think he did a lot in Bismarck There was some different codes between Lincoln and, and Bismarck for a period of time, even though um I think for a while, the county was uh inspecting Lincoln.

00:20:08,370	Then it became the city inspecting Lincoln, and I know there was even some engineers that had things that we had a um a lot uh staked by the engineers by a uh surveyor one time and it got rejected because the city of Bismarck required 6 ft. Lincoln required 7.5 ft to his side.

00:20:31,330	yard Engineer had no clue didn’t know that, that there was that difference, so he had, he had specked it with 6 ft, so it had to be redone, but um was Bruce at one time told that he could have a 2000 square foot building. I don’t, I don’t know because it kind of sounded like after they had this thing planned. they had to make a change in the size of the building you wanted. Mr.

00:21:00,170	Gerin made the statement that we had to go from what would have been a 2000, a 40 by 50 ft building to a 1200 square foot building and I’m wondering was that information he got from the city? Was it information that the contractor who was doing this work for him.

00:21:24,330	had planned, I guess it’s a little confusing to me why that well would be way back in the northwest corner of the lot. Um-hum. Unless the building was going to be placed in that location. closer to that location and maybe these are questions I should have asked. Uh, I don’t know if Mr. Gerin’s still on.

00:21:44,730	I don’t know if we could even ask him those questions anymore, but I think for purposes of this request, we’ve closed the, the hearing on that. Yeah. Um could we open that again if we wanted to? For additional information from the petitioner? We do have a motion on the table, so I mean, I, I think it’s probably inappropriate. to. to take that step.

00:22:10,270	And I, I think also important part of this is he’s on city water This is for the irrigation and the so forth, you know, which is another side note to it, but um, again you know, we have the rules in place to do this um your point with the softener and the pressure tank being in that building.

00:22:28,800	It’s just a couple lines run that takes care of that issue and so forth, even with the distance there, which isn’t that great, so. um, you know, we didn’t create this, we have the regulations in place and so forth. I understand, you know, there could be some discrepancy sometime. We, we’ve seen that before.

00:22:47,530	but case in point this this lot is you know, it’s nice, the hardship I, I understand it, but I, it doesn’t meet the criteria that we have in front of us. So. And one of the issues I think I raised through, uh, questioning was, is what’s being requested the minimum that’s required. to meet their needs.

00:23:17,430	and there was a response to that. I’m not sure that that requires as large of a building as they’re asking for. Uh, although that does not address the creation of the hardship and any additional discussion Hearing none, um, let’s take the role.

00:23:54,270	And just for clarification, uh, we just need a straight majority on this because it’s a motion to deny a variance. I know we’ve had some. Um-hum. Hiccups along the way Ready Board member Wangler? No. Jansen. Yes, Seifert, yes. Lee, yes, Clark, yes. OK, so that motion, uh, was successful. The variance has been denied.

00:24:27,270	Um, it is our action is appealable but our action is final as far as our, our actions go today. Um I think what we’ll do next is move on to item number 5 on our agenda, which is the review of our bylaws.

00:24:51,900	They were before the board at our previous meeting last month, and you’ll notice that there are 2 I’m probably taking Jenny’s thunder here. There are two highlighted provisions in the bylaws where you can note the changes and I’ll turn that over to you. Absolutely, Chair Clark. You can totally take my thunder here, but I’ll go over it for the folks at home. Um, page 1, Article 3, section A membership.

00:25:10,100	We’ve changed that to match current state requirements, um, so from 6 members down to 5, then on page 3, top of the page under Article 6 appeals to the board.

00:25:34,100	Um, we decided last month, and it was a really good idea, um, to add a statement regarding simple majority, um, as you mentioned earlier, if you are um wanting to deny a variant, you don’t need the four concurring votes like you do to approve a variant. So it’s just a simple majority or 3 out of 5 of you, so other than that, those are all the changes we’re proposing at this time.

00:25:51,230	Um, if you do, um, wish to approve the bylaws, I will have, um, a copy ready for, um. for you chair at our next meeting to sign. OK, any questions for staff on the bylaws. I’ll make a motion to approve him Wonderful. We’ve got a motion. Second. In a second.

00:26:20,000	Is there any discussion regarding the bylaws? I think these are, um, great improvements, especially that one clarifying the votes needed to uphold. Yes, thank you. to uphold a decision of the city Um if there’s no further discussion, let’s take a roll on that. Board member Lee Yes Seifert. Yes. Wengler? Yes. Jansen. Yes. Clark, yes. OK, thank you for addressing that.

00:26:51,970	That motion, um, carries and the final item we have is uh Adjournment of the meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for March 5th at 5 o’clock in the Tom Baker meeting room. Nothing further, I’ll Adjourn