The Morgan Township Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 14 denied a variance request from Jeanie and Matthew White that would have allowed a 26-by-30-foot detached garage to sit 10 feet from their rear and right-side property lines instead of the township’s standard 50-foot rear and 25-foot side setbacks.
The board voted 3-2 to deny the variance for both the rear and side yards after a two-hour public discussion and a closed executive session. The motion to deny passed with Gabriel Hernandez, Jeff Griffin and Chair Steve Grody voting in favor; Justin Bresnan and Chris Gaines voted against the motion.
The Whites applied for the variance to place a garage on the southeast corner of their lot at a property listed in meeting materials as parcel G3210017000102, with a mailing address provided in the packet as 2267 California Road, Okeana, Ohio. Zoning Administrator Dale Marshall told the board the parcel has roughly 371 feet of road frontage and that the applicable setbacks for parcels with 200 feet or more frontage are 50 feet from the rear and 25 feet from the side. The Whites asked to reduce the side setback by 15 feet to 10 feet and to place the rear setback at 10 feet under their requested relief.
Neighbors and other residents testified in opposition, arguing the applicants had space to meet the standard setbacks and had not shown an “unnecessary hardship,” the legal standard Marshall said the board must follow under Butler County appellate precedent. One resident, Duncan, told the board, “There are no exceptional topographic conditions…They have the room to build their desired building on flat ground within the existing original setbacks without any proven hardship.”
The applicants, represented at the podium by Jeanie White, said they had taken additional steps requested at an earlier hearing. White said Butler County Soil and Water conducted an assessment on Feb. 27 and provided a recommended drainage plan, and that an independent contractor reviewed the site and agreed with the county’s recommendation. “We’ve done everything you asked us to do in order to provide a solution of this concern,” White said, adding the proposed drainage plan would prevent adverse effects to neighbors.
Board members and residents debated the technical evidence. Marshall and others referenced a topographic map and measurements; Marshall said he measured roughly 90 feet from the driveway to the back property line during his site visit. Opponents pointed to aerial photos and field photos in meeting materials that, they said, showed the proposed site sits on relatively flat ground and therefore does not present a hardship that prevents building within the existing setbacks.
The record also included allegations about prior procedural problems from earlier meetings: disputed notice delivery, claims of off-record site visits and questions about recusals of earlier board participants (the record includes references to former board member Balzer and to Gaines’ prior involvement). Marshall instructed the board that the current hearing should be judged on the evidence presented that night: “What is presented tonight is what will be judged. Proceed,” he said.
After public comment and questions from board members about slope, distance and whether a stamped engineering study was required, the board moved into executive session at about 7:51 p.m. The board returned at about 8:30 p.m. and took the motion to deny the variance. Marshall told the applicants they have 20 days to appeal the BZA decision to the Butler County courts and that the board’s written decision and summary of facts would be mailed in about 10 days.
Discussion (not decision): Board members repeatedly emphasized the narrow legal standard for variances — unnecessary hardship — and asked for clear, stamped engineering evidence when drainage or slope was a dispositive issue. Several neighbors reiterated concerns that the county Soil and Water letter, described by the Whites as supportive, was an advisory assessment rather than a stamped engineering report required for some other township projects.
Decision (formal action): The board’s formal action denied MTBZA-2025-A-3, the Whites’ variance application, by a 3-2 vote. The denial means the applicants must either file an appeal to the Butler County court within 20 days or revise plans to meet existing setbacks.
Ending: The BZA’s written decision and summary of facts will be prepared by the zoning administrator and delivered to the applicants in roughly 10 days; the applicants were informed of the 20-day appeal window to Butler County courts.