Kokomo City approves 3-foot front-setback variance for house built slightly forward of Maple Street

A Kokomo City hearing approved a variance to reduce the front-yard setback by 3 feet for a house built on Maple Street after a survey error rotated the structure from its intended position.

The decision allows the house, represented at the hearing by Wyatt Johnson, to remain where it is instead of being demolished and rebuilt to meet the ordinance’s setback requirement. "The house would have to be demolished to comply with the strict intent of the zoning ordinance," Johnson said, saying the staking error was made by the contractor's surveyor.

The variance matters because, according to city staff findings presented at the hearing, the requested reduction "will not create any safety hazards and will meet vision clearance requirements." The staff memo, read into the record, said the variance "will not allow the petitioner to encroach on any neighboring properties or easements" and that "granting the variance will not impact the surrounding properties or their uses negatively."

Johnson, who identified himself as "representing the case for Mr. Mast," told the board the developer contracted with Majestic Homes and a Lafayette surveyor staked the house incorrectly. He said the mistaken corner stake rotated the house just enough to place it three feet closer to the edge of pavement than the standard permit allows. "The blunder was not discovered until the house to be built on the adjoining lot was staked out," Johnson said.

A neighbor, Jason Reeves of 222 South Dixon, said stakes near his property gave him the impression he had lost about 10 inches of his property. "I just wanted to figure out where my property line is so I don't have to deal with them," Reeves said. City staff and the applicant's representative responded that the boundary issue is separate from the setback variance and suggested the neighbor obtain a private survey to resolve overlapping stakes.

Board members questioned how the error occurred and whether steps could be taken to prevent similar mistakes. A city staff member called the incident "human error" and noted that, in this case, the house does not block sight lines and the deviation is small. The staff member also described common staking practices, including setting wooden hubs and a wood lath alongside stakes.

After public comment and board questions, a motion to grant the variance was moved and seconded; the board voiced approval and the motion passed. The record shows the case labeled on the staff findings as "case P21 V25." The meeting minutes do not record a roll-call vote or the names of the motion mover and seconder.

The hearing transcript records discussion of three related practical points: the variance request (3-foot reduction to front setback), the cause of the setback error (surveyor used an incorrect corner stake, rotating the structure), and adjacent-property concerns over stake placement and potential overlap. Staff clarified the variance does not permit encroachment on neighboring lots or easements and indicated vision clearance requirements would still be met.

The board did not record any additional conditions beyond approval, and no appeal status or effective date was specified in the hearing record.