Kosciusko County zoning board approves multiple variances and home‑business exceptions

The Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals held a hearing that reviewed a string of zoning petitions, including setback variances, accessory‑building size exceptions and permissions for home‑based businesses and temporary camping. After brief presentations, public comment and staff clarifications, the board approved the petitions as presented or conditioned on follow‑up paperwork in each case.

Why it matters: the approvals affect property development, accessory structures, and small‑scale businesses across Kosciusko County, shaping what homeowners and small operators can build or operate without returning for another hearing.

Most petitions were routine and approved after petitioners answered questions from staff and neighbors. Common themes included requests to place garages, sheds or decks closer to property lines or water than ordinance allows, conversions of barns and accessory buildings for storage, and two petitions seeking permission for home‑based businesses (wood finishing and an arts/martial‑arts studio). Several petitioners were asked to provide follow‑up documentation (for example, written confirmation from homeowners’ association boards, neighbors’ letters, or documentation to planning staff) as a condition of approval.

Notable public remarks included Anita Comtehill speaking for a long‑held family property seeking to keep a camper on site for the owners’ use. She said, “We just want our camper there,” explaining the unit is used by the owners and emptied at an RV dump station rather than discharging waste on the property. The board approved that request with the expectation that future owners would need to reapply.

Several petitioners said they had discussed plans with adjacent neighbors and, where relevant, obtained email approvals; county staff requested formal letters where the board wanted a clearer record. On multiple cases staff reminded petitioners that separate permits (building, septic, or state driveway approvals) might still be required even after zoning approval.

Votes at a glance - Variance 2025‑94 (Garland/Dodge/Trees/pond site): approved as presented. - Petition for new lot lines / setbacks (John and Anna Lourie, C‑22 lane): approved as presented (alternate setback of 20 feet accepted during hearing). - Variance 2025‑96 (Greg and Debbie Roberts, Joy Lane Mobile Home Park — deck out to 0 ft from adjacent unit, 32 ft from water): approved with condition that petitioner provide board/owner signoff letters showing neighbor acknowledgment of maintenance/access arrangements. - Case 7.537 / Jaren Bub (use for U‑Haul rental/storage in commercial district): approved as presented; petitioner to provide written permission for access arrangements noted in the hearing. - Exception 2025‑97 / Jeffrey Kasser (setbacks within pond area): approved as presented. - Exception 202538 / Aaron Price (home‑based martial arts studio in accessory building with a proposed addition): approved; petitioner advised to coordinate any state permits and septic work with staff. - Variance 202599 / Colin Young (roof extension, decking/roof added without prior permit): approved; petitioner directed to obtain permit and pay applicable fees within 30 days. - Exception 202539 / Aaron Schwartz (home‑based wood finishing business): approved; petitioner told to obtain required building/operational permits prior to starting business activity. - Variances for Dwayne Chubb (conversion to two residences on one parcel; new residence setbacks): approved as presented, conditioned on the proposed site plan and removal of identified shed/fence. - Variance 25104 / Peter Grecki (24×24 detached garage nearest point ~14.4 ft from right‑of‑way): approved as presented. - Acceptance 202545 / Lance German (oversized accessory building — request to allow 2,704 sq ft where 1,200 is allowed): approved for personal storage; petitioner stated “personal use only. No business.” - Exception 202546 / Douglas Harris (outdoor storage/home‑based storage operation reported by complaint): staff reviewed site and approved as presented; board noted no sign or commercial sales were evident in record. - Exception 202547 and Variance 2025105 / Steven Wood (addition to existing barn; 4.5 ft west property line): approved; town of Leesburg provided favorable recommendation and the board noted support. - Exception 202548 / Camp Adventure (12×40 lean‑to on maintenance building): approved as presented to shelter machinery and equipment from view of camp users. - Variance 2025108 / Diana Tetrick (attached garage addition closest point ~20.5 ft from right‑of‑way): approved; letters of support were on file and the board approved as presented. - Variance 2025109 / Brad Raff (replacement accessory building 5 ft from north property line, 10 ft from right‑of‑way): approved as presented; neighboring landowner letter of support attached to file. - Variance 2025111 / James Bowman II (enclose an existing porch 19 ft 3 in from water’s edge): approved as presented; petitioner noted no closer encroachment to waterline. - Variance 2025113 / Chris Thompson (dual uses on one tract — landscaping business and motel): approved with the board asking petitioner to provide documentation from INDOT Fort Wayne District confirming access/drive review for US‑30 frontage if required. - Variance 2025114 / John and Denise Matthauser (detached garage 15 ft from roadway/right‑of‑way): board discussed potential compromise to 20 ft and asked petitioner to submit a revised plan to address well location and health department setbacks; approval tied to revised plan acceptance by staff.

What the board required afterward Across multiple approvals the board either approved petitions outright or conditioned approval on submission of: a neighbor/HOA letter confirming maintenance or access agreements; confirmation of separate permits (building, septic or state driveway approvals); or a clarified site plan showing final garage/structure placement. Staff repeatedly reminded petitioners that zoning approval does not replace required building or health department permits.

Ending: The hearing was procedural and involved routine property‑line and accessory structure requests rather than new county policy. Several petitioners were directed to provide written confirmations or to pursue separate permits; missing appellants were continued to a later meeting date.