Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies large accessory‑building request on Townsend Drive, citing ordinance limits
Summary
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request by Michael and Elizabeth Wharton to allow a 3,136 sq ft detached accessory building after staff said the request far exceeds the ordinance allowance and neighbors flagged concerns about commercial activity, vehicles and future lot sales.
The St. Joseph County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 13 denied a variance request from Michael and Elizabeth Wharton to increase the total detached accessory structure area on their Townsend Drive property to 3,136 square feet (the current ordinance permits 1,440 sq ft based on 1.5× the primary structure’s ground floor area).
Area Plan Commission staff (Ariel Sharif) told the board the 2.59‑acre property contains multiple parcels in common ownership, a house of about 960 sq ft ground floor area and an existing garage previously expanded under a 2009 variance. Under the current ordinance, accessory‑structure area is tied to the main floor area and the requested total would equal approximately 3.3 times the house footprint — a scale staff said is atypical for the surrounding neighborhood and inconsistent with the ordinance’s intent that accessory structures remain subordinate to homes.
Petitioner Michael Wharton said the new building is intended to store a 40‑foot RV, a 24‑foot enclosed trailer and a tractor used to maintain the property; he said some temporary outbuildings on the parcel are damaged and will be removed. Neighbors had submitted a letter of remonstrance raising concerns about negative impacts to residential character and a claim that the additional building could increase noise and fumes from metal fabrication. Wharton denied any commercial activity, saying, “I don’t do it commercially. I do it for myself.”
Board members debated enforceability and long‑term consequences, including the possibility that if the parcels were sold separately the accessory building could remain on a lot without a primary dwelling. Several members asked whether the three lots could be consolidated; staff said the petitioner could combine tax IDs but that it had not been done. Tom Byers moved to deny the variance in accordance with the staff report; Dr. Julie Lauck seconded. The motion carried by majority vote. The board directed staff to prepare written findings of fact.
Why it matters: The decision underscores how the county applies accessory‑structure area limits based on the primary dwelling’s size and the ordinance’s purpose to keep accessory buildings subordinate to homes. It also highlights enforcement gaps where temporary structures on a property can affect calculations if left in place.
Next steps: Written findings will be prepared and added to the record; staff noted that the petitioner could resubmit after addressing the issues raised, including lot consolidation or reducing the requested accessory area.
Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing record and include staff and the petitioner.
