Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for duplex setback near tile at 401 Harris Street in Bourbon
Summary
The board approved a variance allowing a proposed duplex at 401 Harris Street to proceed using a revised plan (plan B) that sets the building 25 feet and 28 feet from an existing tile; applicant and board discussed the tile's age and prior repairs.
Marshall County drainage officials on July 21 approved a variance request from John Bontrager to build a duplex on a small parcel at 401 Harris Street in Bourbon, with the applicant’s revised plan showing 25- and 28-foot setbacks from a nearby drainage tile.
John Bontrager identified himself for the record as the applicant and property owner at 306 South Washington Irving and described a revised layout he labeled “plan B.” The revised plan moves the proposed building 10 feet south from the initial plan and increases setbacks to about 25 feet on one side and about 28 feet on the other. A county staff presenter said the tile at the site is approximately 8 feet deep and that the original plan’s 15-foot setback was likely to be “tough to get approved.”
One board member noted that a portion of the tile had been dug up and repaired in a past episode after fish in a nearby pond died; a resident's comment in the record said the tile had been replaced previously on the adjacent Johnny Tackett property. In support of plan B, one board member said, “the plan b proposal isn't any closer than the other existing house,” and indicated a preference to approve the revised layout.
A motion to approve the variance on plan B, with a 25-foot setback on one side and 28 feet on the other, was moved and seconded. The board approved the motion on a voice vote; the meeting transcript records “all in favor say aye” and the motion passed. The board discussed practical issues if the tile must be excavated during construction, including where material would be placed and the need to restore yards after any digging, but the approval applies to the plan B setbacks as presented.
The board did not record any formal conditions in the transcript beyond adopting the plan B setbacks; the transcript does not show a detailed written condition requiring restoration or specifying contractor responsibilities beyond standard permitting and construction practices.
