Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owen County BZA tables Kent variance after dispute over certified‑mail notice
Summary
The Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals tabled a request by a property owner identified as Kent to consider a variance for a 40-by-40 structure after an adjoining property owner said certified‑mail notices were delivered fewer than the required 10 days before the hearing.
The Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals on a voice vote tabled a variance request from an applicant identified as Kent after an adjoining property owner said he did not receive certified notice at least 10 days before the hearing.
The matter was put on hold after resident William Jennings told the board he received the certified letter outside the 10‑day notice window. “I received it on May, It was outside of 10 days,” Jennings said during the hearing. Planning staff said the county’s mailed notice was postmarked May 14, which the staff acknowledged is seven days before the meeting: “So we didn’t mail till May 14, which is 7 days. Right?” a staff speaker said.
The board’s procedural standards cited at the start of the agenda require publication and certified‑mail notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing under Indiana Code (noted in the hearing as “Indiana code 5‑3‑1‑2 and 5‑3‑1‑4”) and a posted sign on the property. The hearing record shows the board staff had posted signs and prepared the packet, but the certified‑mail timeline was the point of dispute.
At the conclusion of the exchange, Board member Beth moved to table the Kent variance until the next meeting; Board member Sandra Calvert seconded. The motion carried and the BZA directed staff to reissue notice for the rescheduled hearing. The board discussed having staff send a new certified letter with the updated date and confirmed the case would return when adjoining owners were properly notified.
At the hearing Kent described the proposed structure as a building up to 40 by 40 feet, saying he might reduce the size to limit tree removal. He discussed lot sizes and ravines on the property and said he owns most of the lots in the area. The board clarified setback requirements (references in the hearing record noted front, side and rear setback dimensions) and warned that a 15‑foot side setback would not meet standard rules unless a variance were granted.
The board did not take a final vote on the variance’s merits and made no written findings of fact at the session; the action recorded in the minutes is only the order to table and to reissue certified notice. The case was rescheduled for the committee’s next meeting, which the board discussed setting for the second Thursday of the month (the transcript references the 12th as the next second‑Thursday date).
