CITY OF MISSOURI VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA RAND COMMUNITY CENTER MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 John Dems called the meeting to order at 9:00 am with the following Board members present: Dennis Collier, Mike Nielsen, Mary Jo Buckley, and Ronald Jones. Citizens present included Christopher Gilpin, Lori White, Tawna Lloyd, Turri Colglazier, Marilyn Keizer, Evelyn Marshall, Patty Stueve, Roger Marshall, Michelle Gibson, Aaron Tuttle, Kevin Taylor, Mike Guinan, and John Harrison. Motion to approve agenda for December 15, 2025, made by Nielsen, seconded by Buckley. Motion passes. Motion to Authorize Administrative Duties: Resolution: BOA-25-01 authorizing the Building Official to carry out all administrative functions related to Board of Adjustment meetings, including publishing required public notices, preparing and mailing meeting notifications, and signing such notices on behalf of the Board Chair for administrative purposes, made by Nielsen, seconded by Jones. Motion passes. Motion to Establish Standard Meeting Dates and Times: Resolution: BOA-25-02 to an as-needed basis, preferably the same day as a City Council meeting, made by Nielsen, seconded by Buckley. Motion passes. No action was taken on adopting the Board of Adjustment Procedures Policy. A policy establishing internal procedures for processing, reviewing, and deciding appeals, variances, and conditional use matters, including administrative responsibilities, filing requirements, notice procedures, hearing format, decision documentation, and recordkeeping. Review of Filed Appeal Case 25-901: Appeal of an enforcement action issued by the Building Official regarding the installation of a fence without a valid permit on the property located at 321 E Superior St, Missouri Valley, IA 51555, Blairs S, ½ Lot 1 BLK 31. Harrison stated that he sent a letter to Mrs. White directing that the fence be removed or modified as necessary to comply with applicable City codes and easement access standards, and that any encroachment within the recorded easement be resolved in accordance with the easement terms. Mrs. White subsequently filed this appeal. Harrison explained that under ordinary circumstances, the fence would have been acceptable, but he later became aware of the easement and an ongoing dispute between Mrs. White and her neighbor. After consulting with the city attorney, Harrison was advised to revoke the fence permit, which he then did. The fence was nevertheless constructed. Mrs. White stated that she had several procedural concerns she wished to raise. She expressed dissatisfaction with how the process had been handled and asked the board whether it wished to proceed with the hearing. The board agreed to move forward, and Mrs. White presented her case. Discussion, arguments, and objections followed. A question was asked if all three sections were going to be permanent, no gates. Mrs. White stated that she would like the front section to be a motorized drive gate so her dogs can be in there. Harrison stated that the easement itself does not define the shared driveway. He explained, “The fence permit was revoked because there was an easement. It is a civil matter between the two property owners to decide what that easement is, what the definition of it is, and whether that fence could be put up.” Mrs. White responded, “It is not appropriate for you to take an approved permit away for that reason. That is municipal overreach.” Colglazier stated, “The decision was made because there was an easement and there was pending litigation, and at the recommendation of the city attorney.” “The only way to get them to respect my private property was to put a fence up. That is my right in the state of Iowa.” Mrs. White stated. She also stated that there is an easement agreement that states that we share the driveway and it’s good because they split the cost 50/50. The easement does not say how far it goes in front of the property. It only states that it is an egress and ingress from the shared driveways to the individual’s property. Mrs. White further argued, “The reasons that John revoked the fence, in writing, are unacceptable. They violate Iowa law. That is what we are here to discuss: why he revoked it. Because he defined what my easement was and what it was a part of. He is not allowed to do that.” Question was asked to Mrs. Gibson if she had any trouble accessing her back driveway. Mrs. White stated that there is plenty of room and she has proof that they are using it just fine. Gibson stated that she asked the Whites to move it just two feet off the lot line. To get into the garage, you must angle. She stated that she would not like the fence to come down as far, and she wants the White’s to maintain alongside of the fence. Also, for snow removal it is impossible for a truck to get in the way it is. Kevin Taylor stated that it is not impossible to move snow because he moved it about 2 weeks ago. Gibson asked if he was the one who pushed snow into the entrance of her driveway? Mrs. White also objected, for the record, that if any private conversations or informal arrangements were made to coordinate who would speak on someone’s behalf, such conduct would be improper. Motion was made to DENY Mrs. White’s appeal for an enforcement action issued by the Building Official regarding the installation of a fence without a valid permit by Jones, seconded by Nielsen. Aye – Collier, Dems, Nielsen, Jones. Abstain – Buckley. Mrs. White would like this all in writing, because she will be appealing against the decision. Buckley asked when the new codes would be done. SWIPCO is finalizing revisions for the new zoning ordinances. Planning and Zoning will then review, and if approved, they will go to Council for final approval. Code revisions are still being reviewed by Iowa Codification. Motion to adjourn made by Collier, seconded by Nielsen. Motion passes. Turri Colglazier City Administrator HCTR 12-24-25
