Grand Forks moving ahead with first changes to nonconformity property rules since 1980s
Jun. 1—GRAND FORKS — The city of Grand Forks is moving forward with the first overhaul of its nonconformity code in nearly 40 years.
The changes received their first approval from
the Grand Forks City Council on May 19,
but have been discussed for several months. This will be the first time the city has changed rules governing nonconforming lots, structures and zoning uses since the current land development code was created in 1987. The current code has been
described as punitive, heavy-handed and unclear.
"Particularly with our small lots, our residential small lots, we had quite a few in our older neighborhoods — small, affordable homes," Grand Forks planning manager Andrea Edwardson told the council. "They're getting caught in the financial transactions, because if you have a nonconforming status, typically you cannot receive financing."
The changes also align city code with changes in North Dakota Century Code. A law passed by the Legislature that goes into effect later this year, HB 1500, will allow many noncomforming property owners — who previously had issues — to more easily rebuild or repair their homes.
The new law and the new city code don't allow all nonconformities to rebuild. The changes allow for rebuilding to match a current structure and format if it meets the uses laid out in zoning, doesn't encroach on public rights of way or neighbors, and meets building codes.
Grand Forks' change goes one step further and would allow for most property owners to rebuild, both residential and commercial. Again, owners will have to still meet structural and encroachment rules, but would clear many of the hurdles of needing to go through the city variance process.
The nonconformities affected by the change fall into three categories:
* A nonconforming land use: The property's activity is not allowed by the designated zoning of a property, like residential homes in an industrial area or commercial in a residential zone. Nonconformities often occur when the city changes the land use.
* A nonconforming lot: The property's dimensions no longer meet the requirements of the code. This is common in older parts of Grand Forks, where lots are on average smaller and minimum dimensions have increased over time.
* A nonconforming structure: The use is permitted, but the structure doesn't meet land use requirements for setbacks, impervious surfaces or some other requirement of code.
Nonconforming lots and structures can go through a variance process through the city's Board of Adjustments, but it's a process that can take several weeks from initial application to final approval. Nonconforming land uses require zoning map ordinance changes, which also take several weeks between the Grand Forks City Council and the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission.
The changes to code will likely make the processes clearer, if not easier for many.
"We're essentially saying those north-end properties that existed before our current zoning code, if you're allowed within your district in terms of activity, we want to make it a little bit easier should anything happen," Edwardson told the Herald. "We want to make this easier for you to have housing financing options and open that door up a little bit more."
Additionally, the city is reaching out to several property owners on the north end of Grand Forks that have been identified as being eligible for rezoning so they're no longer nonconformities.
Forty-three properties that are along commercial corridors, but don't face the corresponding thoroughfares tied with the commercial zoning, have had letters sent saying they could apply to be rezoned from commercial to residential. The Planning and Zoning Commission will review applications in July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sound the alarm: Arizona is intentionally neglecting public schools
As Arizona's former superintendent of public instruction, I have stayed engaged with education leaders and teachers across the state, and I am devastated by what I see. Because for years, the Legislature has siphoned funds away from public education without even maintaining enough money for building repairs or retaining highly qualified staff. Sadly, our public school system is holding on by a thread — and we are running out of time to act. Arizona's public schools need our support more than ever. In many school districts across the state, especially in rural Arizona, communities are facing excruciating budget decisions: Close schools? Lay off teachers? Eliminate music classes? These are not isolated challenges, and many more districts are evaluating how many school buildings will need to be closed or which positions to cut. Our entire education funding system is in crisis. Early childhood and higher education funding have been on the decline for years. The entire education system needs to be well-funded to ensure a strong foundation for the state's economy. Yet, despite the very real harm to families and communities, our Legislature has failed to adequately fund public education, and we are still 49th in the country for per-pupil spending. Gov. Katie Hobbs and legislative leaders are in the final rounds of the negotiating process to set the state's budget. They need to confront the Arizona Department of Education's $200 million budget shortfall that was caused, in part, by the out-of-control cost of the universal ESA voucher program, which is nearly $1 billion annually. Despite these pressing issues, the House passed a budget that leaves the voucher program unreformed and aims to cut $60 million from districts. The Senate's version is a step in the right direction, including more money for basic aid, maintenance and instruction. I also would advocate for solving the budget sinkholes created by Republicans' refusal to put politics aside and establish guardrails for the universal ESA voucher program. The assault on public education has only become more aggressive this year with steps taken to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. Any disruption of federal funds — regardless of whether it is funding for students with special needs, Medicaid funding for school nurses, Head Start funding for low-income preschoolers or research dollars for universities — would be devastating for Arizona's schools and families. The lack of support is particularly heartbreaking when I have also seen firsthand the tremendous successes of Arizona's school leaders and teachers. From the bus driver to the reading specialist to the biology teacher, it takes a village, and there are countless passionate and hardworking people who are making a difference in children's lives. Through my current work at Arizona State University, I have toured innovative programs and am inspired by what is possible through collaboration. Opinion: How we grew our school from a low 'C' to nearly an 'A' I was particularly impressed by the Pendergast Elementary School District's partnership with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce to create a co-working space in one of their school buildings, referred to as 'WestVentures.' Not only are they fostering entrepreneurship and partnerships with businesses like Amazon and CORE Construction, but they also are planning to offer hands-on work experiences through student internships. This is an exemplary model of how underutilized school buildings can be repurposed while enhancing student engagement. It gives me hope and optimism when I'm in classrooms watching students' faces light up. But it is a disservice to our youngest Arizonans to stay silent. I am ringing these alarm bells not only as an education leader, but also as a mom. With every year that my two young children approach their first day of kindergarten, I am appalled at the intentional neglect of public schools. We can build on the success of models like WestVentures and establish many more partnerships between businesses, nonprofits and local districts. We can strengthen the foundation of public education by increasing the per pupil allocation. Now is the time for all of us to stand up for public schools. Now is the time to tell the governor and Legislature that education must be a top priority in this year's budget. Our kids and teachers cannot wait, and they deserve so much better. Kathy Hoffman is a former Arizona superintendent of public instruction. Reach her at Like this column? Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona is still 49th for school spending. It's unacceptable | Opinion
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP lawmakers want to sneak a $215-a-day pay raise into the budget. Not cool
It's goodie time at the Arizona Legislature, wherein our leaders hold the budget hostage until they get something for their vote. We don't yet have a complete list of what this year's goodies will be — that'll come later, after they've already slipped them into the budget — but I'm told House Republicans are looking for a way around voters in order to raise their pay. To wit, Maricopa County legislators want to increase their expense pay from $35 a day to $215 a day. By my calculation, that's a 514% boost. Given the sheer boldness of their scheme to try to cash in while nobody's looking, I've got to ask the question. What expenses? They already live here. They already collect a mileage allowance for their commute to and from the state Capitol. Presumably, their $35 daily per diem pays for their lunch while they're out there working for the people. So, unless they're planning a six-martini lunch extravaganza every day, seven days a week, what expenses? I get it. Burger flippers make more than Arizona's legislators. (Some might argue they produce more value.) But the Arizona Constitution is clear. Only voters can increase legislative salary, and we haven't been moved to do so since 1998, when we tried to make honest men and women of our leaders. That year, voters approved a 60% pay raise, to $24,000, on the condition that they ended their per diem scam. Voters wisely thought our leaders ought to actually have expenses before they can collect them. Our leaders thought differently. They took the 60% pay raise and kept their per diem. And never again have we given them another pay raise. Certainly, the case can be made for paying the reasonable expenses of legislators who live outside of Maricopa County and must be in Phoenix four days a week. They collect the federal per diem rate, thanks to a bill passed a few years ago. Right now, that's about $269 a day. That's got Maricopa County lawmakers in a snit. Several have pointed out to me that some out-of-county lawmakers are abusing the system. They drive home each night yet still collect the $269 daily windfall, making their total take three times what Maricopa County lawmakers get. Rather than reforming the system to require legislators to submit expense reports like everybody else, Maricopa County legislators are holding out for a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. They tried earlier this spring, but the bill died — probably because nobody wanted to be caught voting to give themselves a raise. Now, by slipping it into a massive set of budget bills, they've got cover. Their proposed amendment would give them 80% of what legislators from outside Maricopa County get while the Legislature is in session — or $215 a day. That would be cut to $107 after 120 days, which is a far sight better than the $10 a day they now get. Of course, the Legislature — which, by the way, is dominated by Maricopa County lawmakers — should kill this outrageous ask. It's nothing more than an arrogant end run on voters and a sneaky one at that. Opnion: Rich kids need our help to pay for their piano lessons If our leaders want a raise, it's really rather simple: Deserve it. Here's my three-point plan for deserving it: Quit playing endless, tiresome, entirely predictable games of political gotcha with your opponents and start addressing the pressing issues facing our state. You might start with water, and the fact that we are running out of it. Or school vouchers, and the fact that some controls are in order as the program is set to break $1 billion. Or public education, and the crying need to ensure that kids are learning to read and write and think. Get over the fact that we elected a Democratic governor and make a good-faith effort to work with her, rather than undercutting her at every turn and taking to social media to crow about it. (You know who you are.) Finally, reform the per diem system. It is not unreasonable that legislators ought to have expenses before they can be reimbursed for them. Then and only then, ask us again to raise your pay. I recognize that $24k a year is pathetic. But so is going around us and the state constitution in an 11th hour attempt to line your pockets. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: House Republicans want 514% pay hike to cover fake expenses | Opinion
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Big state budget questions linger about crime, Medi-Cal, Delta tunnel
SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven't been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it's currently making a ton of weighty decisions. They'll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending. But the lawmakers' moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump's power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla's being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question. Plus congressional wrangling over Trump's 'Big Beautiful' ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war. Meanwhile, it's one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars. The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn't, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom. The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of 'trailer bills' containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms. The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1. Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I've written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a 'follow' — a report on where those matters stand. For starters, there's Proposition 36 funding. Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties. Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time. Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts' progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure's backers estimate a $250-million annual tab. Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn't provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan. But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million. Woefully inadequate, the measure's backers contend. They're pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate. Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won't work, he insists. Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There's nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says. 'I want to make sure we uphold the voters' wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,' Blakespear says. 'This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.' Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: 'I'll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.' He asserts the budget now being negotiated won't hold up because of chaos under Trump, who's constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California. Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally. Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California's version of federal Medicaid for the poor. But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn't kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn't set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget. The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll. To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1. The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers 'unsatisfactory immigration status.' What does that mean? Hopefully it's being negotiated. And there's the matter of the governor's proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature. The governor wants to 'fast-track' construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property. Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely 'No': come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don't try to fast-track the Legislature. The must-read: 'A good day': Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What's next? Until next week,George Skelton —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
