New Carlisle board approves variance for 3,200 sq. ft. pole barn after neighbor objections

The Area Board of Zoning Appeals for St. Joseph County on Oct. 8 approved a variance allowing a property owner in New Carlisle to construct a 3,200-square-foot detached accessory structure, commonly described in the hearing as a pole barn, despite opposition from nearby residents.

The petitioner, Adam Wallace of 708 South Grama Street, asked the board to permit the barn after staff said the house lot is 1.2 acres and the proposed barn would be about 1.6 times larger than the home. The town zoning standard cited by staff limits detached accessory area to the main floor area of the home; the petitioner sought relief from that standard to build a 40-by-80-foot structure where the code would otherwise limit total detached accessory area to 1,980 square feet.

The request drew multiple neighbors into the hearing. Jamie Kochekai, who lives at 704 South Bray Street immediately north of the subject property, told the board she and her husband oppose the variance and submitted exhibits and a petition signed by 12 nearby property owners.

"The size and bulk of a pole barn structure that's proposed ... will be prominent and very, pronounced," Kochekai said, noting the site would be roughly six feet higher than her backyard and that winter views offer no screening. She added that she had concerns that the structure could be used for nonresidential activities that are not allowed in town limits. Tom Pacheco, who identified himself as the property owner to the north, said he believes the petitioner has not demonstrated a practical difficulty and urged the board to deny the request.

Fariel Sharif, Area Plan Commission staff, described the site and the ordinance standard: "The standards in the town zoning ordinance is that a detached accessory structures cannot exceed the main floor area of the home." Sharif said staff recommended approval, citing the larger lot size and the availability of acreage behind the home while noting that screening placed in evidence by the petitioner appeared to be located on the neighbor's property rather than the subject parcel.

Wallace told the board the request is driven by personal storage needs — "vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, cars" — and denied any intent to run a business or keep livestock in the building, which he said would not be allowed in town. He told the board he could build a smaller structure by right and that he had considered that option.

Board members discussed two motions during the item: an initial motion to deny the variance based on the remonstrance letters and neighborhood testimony, and a subsequent motion to approve the variance as requested. After discussion the board approved the variance and said written findings would be issued.

The staff report noted two letters in the record: one in support from a property owner two houses north, and one in opposition from the adjacent neighbor directly north, who provided photographic exhibits of other accessory structures in the neighborhood and argued the request exceeded the character of the residential district.

The board's approval allows the petitioner to build beyond the numeric accessory-area limit set by the town ordinance; the order of approval directs staff to prepare written findings documenting the board's reasons. The board did not attach additional conditions to the approval in the hearing transcript.

The matter will be formalized when the board issues its written findings and the town processes any building permits required for the barn.

For context: the appeal concerned a variance from the Town of New Carlisle zoning ordinance provision identified in the hearing as "section 152.083(c)(1)(a)," which limits detached accessory area relative to the primary residence. The petition was considered under the Area Board of Zoning Appeals procedures for the town of New Carlisle.