Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers and records findings for Tri County/ barndominium use variance; board notes mixed views on hardship
Summary
The board heard multiple business-use variance requests for barndominiums and contractor storage on A-1 parcels (Tri County and related applicants). Staff and counsel argued limited traffic, screening and agricultural context supported approval; board members debated the hardship prong before recording findings and votes on each application.
The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals considered several related use-variance and special-exception applications for agricultural parcels proposed to be used for contractor, HVAC/electrical, and similar business-support activities. One large matter involved Tri County (Tri County Feeding & Energy / Tri County Land), which sought to permit a 10,800-square-foot barndominium and limited outdoor support operations on a 40-acre tract with roughly two acres immediately around the structure.
Counsel for the applicants described planned screening, limited daily site traffic (three to four employee vehicle movements), and a primarily off-site service model where employees load at the site and immediately proceed to work sites. Tech-review and building-inspection comments identified steps needed for state design release, stormwater documentation and confirmation that portions of the structure designated for living space meet applicable building-code requirements.
Board deliberation centered on the five criteria required for a use variance: public health and safety, effects on adjacent property values, uniqueness of the property, unnecessary hardship caused by strict ordinance application, and consistency with the county comprehensive plan. Members expressed differing views on whether a true hardship had been demonstrated given the building’s agricultural-style appearance and the owner’s prior decisions to construct a large building. The record shows discussion of whether prior permitting and the site layout created conditions that justify a variance.
The board recorded findings of fact for the record and processed motions and votes for each application. For applications where findings met the unified development ordinance prongs, the board moved to approval and included commitments and conditions suggested by staff and counsel (screening, limits on outdoor storage and clarifying vehicle-turning plans). For applications where members could not find the necessary hardship, members registered disagreement and the record notes that some variance requests were not approved.
Staff and applicants were advised to complete outstanding state and local permit steps (stormwater, state design release) before permits for changed use or occupancy would be issued.
