Pocatello council upholds denial of variance for 165 Rosewood; owner told to seek compliance or face enforcement

The Pocatello City Council voted unanimously to uphold the hearing examiner’s denial of a variance request for an accessory structure at 165 Rosewood, rejecting the property owner’s plea to allow the existing shop to remain.

Andy Matkin, the property owner, told the council he hired a contractor who he said would pull permits but did not, that he borrowed against his house to build the structure and cannot afford demolition. “This thing can ruin me,” Matkin said, describing the financial and personal strain as he asked the council to grant a variance or allow him to pay a fine instead.

Jennifer Flynn, assistant planner, told the council the detached structure was built without a permit, sits on a 0.16-acre lot zoned residential medium density single-family (RMS), maintains about a 2-foot east‑side setback where 5 feet is required, and is roughly 1,079 square feet and 15 feet, 8 inches tall. Flynn said the variance sought both a reduced side setback and an exception to size standards; the hearing examiner denied the request in November and this meeting was a reconsideration of that denial.

Council members pressed Matkin about who set the building layout; Matkin acknowledged he poured the foundation and laid out the building himself. Council members also asked staff about enforcement options. A city official (Jared) and Police Chief Roger Shai explained that granting a variance would address only the zoning setback/size issue and would not substitute for required building permits and inspections. Flynn and the city attorney’s office said the city would still pursue the no‑permit compliance process, which typically begins with a citation and can progress through the courts; demolition remains a possible, last‑resort remedy if safety cannot be confirmed by inspection.

Councilman Mangum, who moved to uphold the hearing examiner’s decision, said the code exists to protect neighbors and that it would be unfair to grant relief now to someone who did not follow the normal permitting process. The motion to uphold the denial was seconded by Councilman Bates and carried on a roll call vote with Mangum, Bates, Nichols, Paulson, Satterfield and Swanson voting yes.

Because the structure was built without inspections, staff told the council there would be separate follow‑up to verify whether the building meets life‑safety standards; if it does not, the city would pursue additional enforcement steps. The council’s action tonight concerned only the variance; the lack of a building permit remains an outstanding enforcement matter.