Clinton County BZA denies special exception for roadside vehicle-repair operation after yearlong violations

The Clinton County Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 20 denied a special-exception request for a vehicle-repair operation at 1409 W. County Road 500 N, finding the site’s condition and the intensity of operations did not meet the county’s home-occupation standards.

Liz Stitzel, planning staff, told the board the property was first cited Dec. 16, 2024, for junk and debris and “disabled vehicles,” and that subsequent inspections showed the outdoor storage and vehicle stacking continued. Stitzel said the operation had been functioning as a commercial garage without approval and that multiple supplemental standards for a class 2 home occupation — including limits on vehicle storage, exterior appearance, and the requirement that vehicles awaiting repair be stored inside — were not met.

The petitioner, who spoke at the hearing, said nine of the vehicles on the site are his and described most as operable and plated. He said his work is largely transmission repair, that he operates alone, and that he had installed a fence and moved a dumpster after receiving a notice. “For the vehicles, nine of them are mine. They’re all plated and registered,” the petitioner said from the microphone.

Board members and staff discussed the record of noncompliance and the character of the site. A board member who farms adjacent land observed complaints had pushed the case to the BZA and noted the property’s visible accumulation of vehicles. Stitzel and members said that, even if some vehicle work can qualify as a small home occupation, the present intensity and outdoor storage on this site exceed what the ordinance permits and that the site would be better suited to a commercially zoned location if the business remains at this scale.

A motion to deny the special exception (application CC2025-00855, docket 30-25-SE) was made and seconded; the board recorded votes of Andy Bailey — yes (to deny), Stacy Pedigo — yes, and Scott Hudensberger — yes. The motion passed unanimously.

The board and staff advised the petitioner to remove the outdoor storage and bring the property into compliance. Stitzel noted that the board’s action will be reported to the judge in the petitioner’s pending court case regarding the earlier violations.

The denial does not prohibit the petitioner from later seeking an appropriate commercial site or reapplying if the property is remediated and can meet the home-occupation standards.