Board affirms notice of violation against Bakers after hours‑long hearing over lights and outdoor storage

The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 28 affirmed a planning‑staff issuance of Notice of Violation Order No. 2024‑01 against Jeffrey and Crystal Baker for their property at 10869 West Appaloosa Road in Adams Township, concluding a lengthy hearing that included multiple neighbors and planning staff testimony.

The violation notice, issued by the planning department and described in the staff packet, alleges public nuisance and zoning ordinance violations tied to extensive outdoor storage of equipment and other materials and to lighting practices neighbors say constitute harassment. Planning Director Laura Parker told the board the file documents “many public nuisance violations of the zoning ordinance and the public nuisance ordinance, by the county commissioners.” The board voted to affirm the staff decision on the appeal; the recorded motion passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition.

Petitioners Jeffrey and Crystal Baker disputed the violations and presented testimony and photographic evidence. Crystal Baker said she and her family had been subject to what she described as repeated, false complaints and reported passing multiple inspections from state and county agencies: “We are in compliance,” she told the board. Jeffrey Baker and several friends and family members described the Bakers as long‑time residents who maintain the property and offer assistance to neighbors. Jeffrey Baker said, “We don't shine lights at them,” and asked to be left alone.

Neighbors who testified strongly urged the board to deny the appeal and allow enforcement to continue. Multiple neighbors described bright, movable construction and spotlighting that they said were used at night and directed toward houses around the pond or lake, lighting yards and interiors. Wendy Morrison said the Bakers’ lights “shine them into my house” and described being startled awake: “I woke up at 12:30 at night. I thought there was an airplane coming through my house the very first time they did this.” Other neighbors described frequent equipment operation at night, lighting that made roadways blinding for drivers, and a yard they characterized as cluttered with tarps, covered implements and dozens of small tractors and equipment.

Board discussion noted that the Bakers were given notices of violation, that initial compliance periods had elapsed, and that the code enforcement process contemplates escalating remedies. A board member summarized the staff recommendation and moved to affirm the planning director’s determination; members voted to affirm. Planning staff told the board enforcement will proceed, and Parker said court action is the next likely step if compliance is not achieved: “The next step will be court,” she said during questioning about remedies.

The hearing record contains multiple photos, videos and complaint histories submitted to the planning department. Parker told the board the notice of violation and supporting material set a 15‑day compliance window after receipt of the notice; the Bakers appealed and the compliance timeline is now in the administrative process. The board’s action affirms the staff finding and allows enforcement to proceed along the county’s administrative path.

Because the appeals process was denied, neighbors and the Bakers were encouraged by the board to pursue any remaining procedural remedies available to them in the county code and in court.