Area Board of Zoning Appeals tables request for reduced shed side-yard setback on Waynwood Drive

The St. Joseph County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on May 14 heard a petition from Kristen and Lena Nabalski asking to place a 120-square-foot shed 5.5 feet from the north side property line, less than the 8-foot setback required by section 154.107, sub c 2 of the county zoning code. The board discussed the matter at length but ultimately tabled the petition to the next meeting after failing to reach a majority decision.

Staff member Sean Klein, Area Plan Commission director, told the board that “staff is recommending denial of the variance” because, based on the materials provided, “there really doesn't appear to be any practical difficulty” and “it does look like the shed could be shifted westward and built in the backyard and meet that 8 foot setback.” Klein also said the board received “1 letter in remonstrance” opposing the variance on the basis that it would “detract from the appearance of the property in the neighborhood.”

Petitioner (Mr.) Nabalski said the existing fence sits two feet inside the property line and that placing the shed at the requested location would avoid reworking an underground sprinkler system and preserve space needed for septic access. “So we ask for some, we're talking about 2 and a half feet,” Nabalski said, describing the reduction from the required 8 feet to the requested 5.5 feet. He said neighbors have accessory structures that do not meet the 8-foot standard, and that the proposed shed would be “...not gonna be any type of eyesore.”

Board members questioned measurements on the site plan, the presence and location of a well, and whether the petition met the state practical-difficulty standard for variances. One board member noted uncertainty in the petitioner’s measurements and said the difference requested might be less than stated. Another said location near the street and house raised concerns about granting a reduced setback. The board took two recorded motions during the item: an initial motion to deny the variance tied 3–3 and a subsequent motion that drew a majority in preliminary roll call, but after extended discussion the board concluded it could not reach a stable majority and tabled the petition to the next meeting.

The board did not adopt any written findings of fact at the May 14 meeting on this petition. The item was tabled because the board “was unable to reach a majority to act on the petition,” and staff told the petitioner the case will return at the next meeting. The petitioner was advised he may ask staff additional questions after the meeting about well location and setbacks.

The petition citation given on the record was “petition number 156049, Waynwood Drive” and the requested change was from an 8-foot side-yard setback to 5.5 feet for a new accessory structure. The public comment period drew no speakers for or against the petition on the record.