Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears opposition and tables MBH Properties’ request for staging/maintenance yard; drainage review required
Summary
MBH Properties sought a site for construction storage and offices on a 19‑acre parcel; neighbors raised drainage, tile and rural‑character concerns. The board agreed to table the item for a site visit and additional technical review.
The Marshall County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 15 heard extensive public opposition to a proposed staging and storage site from MBH Properties and agreed to table the matter for a site visit and further technical review, principally of drainage and existing tile locations.
Applicant Ben Hershberger sought permission to use roughly 1.57 acres of a 19‑acre parcel for buildings to serve a construction business: a 100-by-72 storage building and a 140-by-64 office building, a fenced equipment yard, and a driveway. TRC recommended approval conditioned on detailed drainage plans, health‑department septic approval and impervious‑area controls.
Why it matters: Neighbors emphasized the parcel’s long history as farmland and said an industrial staging site would alter rural character, increase dust and traffic on unimproved county roads, and risk damaging historic subsurface drainage tile. Multiple written objections cited loss of farmland, decline in rural setting and increased truck traffic on largely unpaved Fifth Road.
Oral opposition included Joseph Stoller, a nearby farmer, who told the board, “I have an old 7 inch clay tile that drains a lot of my farm,” and asked how the tile would be protected. Another neighbor noted the county comprehensive plan encourages keeping rural areas agricultural and asked whether the application was effectively a rezoning by another name.
The applicant said the facility would function largely as a staging point; trucks and trailers normally leave for job sites and return in the morning or evening, and the company expected relatively limited on‑site deliveries. He told the board he had met neighbors in the field and would move marked tile if necessary to avoid damage.
Outcome: Several board members asked for a site visit. Because of the unresolved drainage/tile questions and public concern, the board agreed to table the item and revisit it at the next meeting after staff and the applicant provide additional site information and a prepared drainage plan.
Next steps: The applicant was asked to provide a professionally engineered drainage study, clarify the location and protection plan for subsurface tile, and coordinate with neighbors and county staff. The item will return to the board for further consideration.
