A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Planning Commission approves two setback variances for 308 Eustace Ave

March 10, 2026 | Goodland, Sherman County, Kansas


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 »

Planning Commission approves two setback variances for 308 Eustace Ave
The Goodland Planning Commission on Monday approved two variance requests for 308 Eustace Ave, allowing the property owner to build on an existing concrete pad that does not meet current setback rules.

Zach (city planning staff) told commissioners the property’s pad and footers were poured before the current R2 setbacks were adopted and recommended the board find the situation unique and that granting the variances would not harm public health or adjacent property owners. Trevor Linton told the commission he plans a 20-by-30 enclosed outdoor living space for family use, with minimal plumbing and a single bathroom; he said the structure would match the house’s exterior materials.

Commissioners discussed whether the lot’s corner location, larger original lot sizes in that neighborhood and an existing fence offset supported uniqueness and hardship findings. Zach noted possible sight-triangle concerns in the alley but said alleyways are used for utilities rather than public roadways and the fence currently sits off the property line, reducing impacts.

Commissioner Grady Bonsel moved and Commissioner Dennis Neita seconded approval of the rear-yard variance (reduction to 4 feet); the motion carried, with one commissioner recorded opposed. Commissioner Curtis Penrod moved and Grady Bonsel seconded approval of the side-yard variance (side setback to 0 feet); that motion also carried, with one opposed.

The commission’s approvals allow the applicants to use the existing pad subject to compliance with all other R2 zoning and building-code requirements and any standard permitting conditions. No individual vote-by-name was announced in the record; the board’s roll call earlier in the meeting showed five members present.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee