Morgan County BZA approves variance to keep pole barn five feet from new lot line

The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to approve a development-standard variance that will allow an existing pole barn at 7255 Hancock Ridge Road in Ashland Township to remain about five feet from a new property line after a proposed lot split.

The approval, granted during a public hearing on case D-25-05, lets the petitioner reconfigure a driveway and split a 25-foot strip of land so she can obtain bank financing and continue agricultural use of the remaining acreage.

At the hearing, Linda Pruitt, the petitioner, said she is purchasing two 20-acre fields behind the family homestead and that the split and transfer of the driveway would protect continued farm access. "The pole barn sits about 5 feet off of that property line," Pruitt said, explaining why she asked for the variance. Pruitt said she is financing the purchase through Farm Credit and that the lender preferred she own the driveway rather than hold only an easement.

Planning staff (Miss Parker) told the board the pole barn was built in 1977 and that the driveway was extended to the barn at that time. Staff recommended approval after noting there were no identified adverse effects to adjacent property and that the requested variance met the three required findings in the county ordinance: no detriment to public health/safety/welfare (section 2.1), no substantial adverse effect on adjacent property (section 2.2), and practical difficulties produced by strict application of the ordinance preventing reasonable use of the property (section 2.3).

Pruitt told the board her brother, Joseph B. Stierwalt, owns the house and the pole barn and that she is purchasing the remaining acreage behind it; she said neighboring owners, including the Myers family and Rebecca Allen, indicated no objection. The staff report included a typographical correction noted at the hearing: the strip to be split should be listed as 25 feet wide on the survey, not 20 feet as printed in the staff report.

A motion to approve case D-25-05 was made and seconded; the board voted in favor and the variance was approved. The board record indicates four members were present and the motion passed by voice vote.

The board took no further conditions beyond the standard requirement that the petitioner meet the findings set out in the county ordinance. No health-department comments were entered into the record, and no additional follow-up tasks or reporting requirements were assigned at the meeting.

Minutes show this was the only agenda item that evening; the board adjourned after the vote.