Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants rear‑setback variance for shed at 808 Ashland despite staff recommendation to deny

3115785 · April 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved a variance allowing a shed 2 feet from the rear property line at 808 Ashland Street; APC staff recommended denial and warned about utility easements and permit risks.

The Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to reduce the rear setback from 10 feet to 2 feet to allow a shed at 808 Ashland Street (BZA 21‑90). The board recorded seven ballots with a 6–1 tally in favor and granted the variance despite APC staff recommending denial.

Christine Roehl, APC staff, said the property is in Barberry Heights Subdivision (R‑1) and noted the final plat shows a 10‑foot utility easement at the rear of the lot. Roehl told the board staff found no ordinance‑imposed hardship making it impossible to meet the 10‑foot setback requirement and therefore recommended denial. Roehl also said that if the variance were approved the owner would likely need encroachment agreements with utility companies and possibly a vacation of easements with the City of West Lafayette.

Petitioner representative Jeremy Rush (foreman for JLG Property Investments) and property owner Don Gribble spoke in favor of the variance, saying the proposed 24‑by‑14 shed would sit in a corner of the backyard where utilities had been marked and that the owner had no utilities in that corner. Rush and Gribble said two feet would be sufficient to perform basic maintenance and mowing behind the shed. The board discussed the practical risks of locating a structure in an easement: staff and board members said that even if no utilities are currently visible, the easement remains in place and utility companies could later require removal of structures.

A board member asked whether vacating the easement would be required; staff and board counsel advised that vacating an easement is not automatically a condition of APC approval but that the petitioner should obtain permission from easement holders and consult legal counsel. The board then cast ballots; the variance passed 6–1.

The board’s action was recorded in the hearing minutes and the APC staff recommendation and utility easement concerns were noted in the record.