Miami County BZA deadlocks, variance for Lewis property denied after tie vote

Miami County’s Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 17 failed to approve a variance request from Kevin Lewis that would have allowed an existing metal outbuilding at 25925 North Rockville Road in Lewisburg to remain about 5 feet from the side property line.

Staff told the board that, under state statutes and Miami County zoning regulations, the board must find five conditions before granting a variance. “I do not believe that it meets all 5 of the conditions and therefore, should be denied,” the planning/codes staff member told the board during the meeting.

The variance application arose after county staff received a public complaint July 17, 2024, about a building constructed without a permit and within the side-yard setback. The county’s appraiser first recorded the improvement on Aug. 15, 2023; a notice of violation was mailed Aug. 7, 2024, and a second set of letters was mailed Aug. 14. The property sold Oct. 16, 2024. Staff told the board the structure was built by a previous owner and said the need for a variance was not caused by a unique physical condition of the land but by the prior owner’s actions.

Applicant Kevin Lewis told the board he and his family bought the property after routine due diligence. He said he relied on statements from the seller’s agent and appraisal records and that he had no prior notice of a zoning violation. Lewis said the building had been present for years and that moving or demolishing it would impose a significant financial burden and slow ongoing cleanup and restoration of the property. “There’s no significant effect to any adjacent property owners by it being a few feet closer,” Lewis said.

Neighbors who spoke raised concerns about the building’s proximity to property lines and potential impacts on future development. A neighbor, Robert Mazin, told the board he had staked property lines and contacted county staff before the sale; he said the prior owners had created ongoing problems on the parcel and that the encroaching structure harmed neighboring owners’ interests.

Board discussion focused on the five legal factors for variances: uniqueness of the condition, effect on neighbors, unnecessary hardship, public welfare, and consistency with the spirit of the regulations. Staff recommended denial, citing case law and the principle that a buyer generally assumes responsibility for improvements on acquired land. The applicant and supporters argued the circumstances differed from cases staff cited because the structure already existed and the purchasers had no reliable notice that a violation existed.

A motion to deny the variance was made, seconded and voted on. The result was a 3–3 split; because a majority was required to approve the variance, the application was not approved. The planning/codes staff said the board’s decision can be appealed to district court.

The board also discussed administrative details raised by the case: how the appraiser’s office and planning/codes communicate, the county’s practice of enforcing violations on a complaint basis, and the limits of remedying noncompliance after a property sale. Staff told the board they would consult the county attorney for any follow-up questions about procedures.

Miami County staff said they would provide further guidance to the property owners about permit requirements, and that if work were required to bring the building into compliance it would involve a building-permit application and a site plan showing a compliant location or steps to move/demolish the structure. Staff noted concrete flatwork and driveways are not subject to setback requirements, but buildings and additions are.

The board did not adopt any conditions or alternative compliance deadlines at the meeting; staff said they would work with the owners on next steps and clarifications of the permitting process.

What happens next: Because the board did not approve the variance by majority vote, the application failed. Staff told the board that the next remedy for the applicant would be to pursue any administrative or legal avenues, including an appeal to district court.