Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident opposes California Road variance; trustees defer decision to executive session
Summary
A resident spoke against a requested variance on California Road, saying no hardship was shown; trustees said they would discuss the matter in executive session. Zoning staff also reported updates on permit activity and that Rev Renewals had paused plans for a small solar farm after failing to reach agreement with utility partners.
A Morgan Township resident urged trustees to deny a requested building variance on California Road, arguing there was no proven hardship and that approving the variance would set a precedent; trustees said the matter would be discussed in executive session.
At the public-comment microphone, Tim Duncan of 7365 South Wire Road said the proposed variance for the Whites’ property did not meet the hardship standard and would reduce privacy and increase water-management risks for neighboring yards. "They are asking for an extreme variance without any hardship," Duncan said. "Any variance without a proven hardship would set a terrible precedent with our township."
Trustees told Duncan the request would be discussed in executive session and may not receive a final decision that night. Zoning officer Dale reported that the township had required the applicant to obtain an engineer’s drainage assessment and that the applicant had been communicating with the prosecutor’s office.
Dale also reported a separate zoning development: Rev Renewals, the developer pursuing a small solar farm, had been unable to reach agreement with Duke Energy (or related rural utility interests) and had released a local representative to "seek other solutions," Dale said. He presented that as a positive development for neighbors, noting Rev Renewals "could not find common ground" with the utility partner.
Why it matters: variance decisions and utility-scale or community solar proposals can affect property rights, drainage and neighboring land uses. Trustees must weigh written criteria for variances and, where needed, consult legal counsel and technical reports before making a binding decision.
The zoning officer also listed ongoing enforcement matters, including a cleanup effort at a burned building on Bell Road where the owner has begun renovations and correspondence with the prosecutor’s office. A BZA hearing was scheduled for March 27 for a separate case that had been tabled while the applicant obtained an engineer’s drainage assessment.
Public comment and staff updates primarily moved the matter toward a closed deliberation rather than immediate action: following public comment, trustees voted to move into executive session to consider appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion or compensation of a public employee or official and to discuss the variance privately.
Ending: Trustees did not announce a final variance decision at the meeting. The township said it would continue the process after legal and technical review and indicated the variance and related zoning items would appear on a future agenda.
