Porter County planning staff recommend definition, setbacks for ‘‘barndominiums’’; commission gives favorable recommendation to send to commissioners

Porter County planning staff on a draft ordinance known as AM2025-2 recommended defining and regulating ‘‘barndominiums’’ and asked the Plan Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners with a clarifying condition on adjacency setbacks.

The ordinance draft defines a barndominium as a structure in which the attached nonresidential (storage/shop) portion exceeds 50 percent of the building's footprint; staff proposed that storage not exceed 75 percent of the total footprint and recommended larger setbacks where a barndominium would sit next to denser residential zoning.

Why it matters: the county is seeing a rise in inquiries and permit submissions for large, hybrid shop/residence buildings. Staff said the structures can be substantially larger and taller than typical homes and that clear rules are needed so adjacent homeowners and reviewers know when special review is required.

Staff presentation and proposal Mike Allen, Porter County building commissioner, presenting staff's paper to the Plan Commission, said the county has received multiple inquiries and at least one permit submission for these mixed shop/residence buildings. Allen summarized the draft: a 50 percent storage threshold would trigger the barndominium definition; staff recommended that storage not exceed 75 percent; standard residential height limits would continue to apply; and setbacks of 100 feet were proposed from front, side and rear where adjacent to nonagricultural land, with a larger setback where adjacent to denser residential zones (the draft used 200 feet as an example). Allen told the commission, "If it's over 50%, all we're saying is you have other criteria that you must satisfy. You gotta go to the BZA." (BZA is the Board of Zoning Appeals.)

Key elements in the draft cited during discussion include: - Definition trigger: attached nonresidential storage/shop area greater than 50 percent of the building footprint would qualify a structure as a barndominium. - Storage cap: suggested that the storage portion not exceed 75 percent of total footprint. - Height: the draft would not change the underlying zoning height limit for a primary residential structure (35 feet in typical residential districts), while agricultural exemptions allowing up to 50 feet would remain where applicable. - Setbacks: staff proposed 100-foot setbacks from front, side and rear in many cases; where a barndominium is adjacent to R-1 (denser residential) zoning the draft proposed increasing the setback (200 feet was suggested as staff's starting point and flagged for further clarification). - Special-exception process: in A-1, A-2 and RR (rural residential) zones, staff proposed that barndominiums be listed as special-exception uses requiring review by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); staff also included approval criteria for BZA review so applicants that meet certain standards would be likely to receive approval.

Questions and concerns from commissioners Commissioners asked about aesthetics, future conversions and business uses. Commissioner Nikki Witkowski said she struggled to distinguish some barndominiums from large houses and worried owners could alter the balance of storage to living space after construction: "What stops that owner from having that 75% storage space and whittling that away?" She asked how the county would prevent a structure that initially met the barndominium threshold from later becoming essentially a typical residence.

Staff and other commissioners emphasized enforcement and review points rather than trying to write exhaustive rules. Allen said building permits and existing zoning enforcement tools would be used to address conversions and unpermitted commercial activity. He also noted that building-material choices do not determine the classification: "Let's not get hung up on the aesthetic, whether it's metal or even looks like a barn as long as it's livable space... The 50%." (staff comment).

Safety and code compliance Mike Allen and the building department clarified that all structures must meet the Indiana State Building Code, regardless of appearance or construction material. Allen said many prefabricated manufacturers produce designs to code; he noted that where vehicles or other hazards are stored, firewall and separation requirements apply between storage and living spaces.

Outcome and next steps During the public hearing portion there were no members of the public who spoke in favor or opposed. A motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners, with the condition that staff clarify adjacency triggers and distances, was made and seconded. The Plan Commission approved the favorable recommendation by voice vote.

The commission's favorable recommendation sends AM2025-2 to the County Commissioners for their public hearing and final decision; staff and commissioners flagged several items (setback distance when adjacent to R-1, the precise percent caps, and criteria for business uses) for possible further revision if the measure returns for additional action.

Ending: Staff said it will return with clarified language on adjacency triggers and may adjust setback distances based on commissioner direction; the county building department reiterated that any structure must comply with the Indiana State Building Code and that the BZA remains a route for case-by-case relief.