Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Noble County BZA denies use variance for lakeside structure after board finds code, setback issues
Summary
The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a use-variance request for a lakeside accessory structure after staff and members found the unit did not meet setback and code requirements and a unanimous vote was not achieved with only three members present.
The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals on a December agenda denied a use-variance request for an accessory structure at a lakeside parcel after concluding the building failed to meet required setbacks and had several code deficiencies.
At the hearing staff said the board’s October review returned with submitted photographs but staff and inspectors were unable to complete an internal inspection. Theresa, the planning staff member, told the board the property’s northeast side failed to meet the 30-foot setback required by the development standards and the building-inspector identified safety problems including noncompliant railings and exposed wiring that suggested the unit was more residential than a storage shed.
The petitioner — addressed by the board as Cindy and testifying she had bought the parcel at a tax sale — said the structure sits on an existing slab and could not be moved; she described missing power and running water and said she intended to bring the structure closer to compliance over time. Neighbors and a citizen who inspected the site discussed the location of the septic field and whether a modest addition could bring the building’s footprint to the 960-square-foot minimum that staff said the district requires for a primary dwelling.
Board members debated both the measurement uncertainties and whether the structure could be made a legal primary dwelling. Multiple members signaled either support or objection to findings of fact; because only three of five board members were present, the chair had earlier noted a unanimous vote was required for approval. The record shows at least one member explicitly disagreed with granting the variance, and the board recorded that the relevant variance prongs were denied. The meeting record indicates the board declined to approve the use variance as presented.
The board advised petitioners on options, including applying for a new development-standard application, producing a certification survey to resolve measurement conflicts, and addressing the building-inspection and health-department items before any permit could issue. No permit will be issued for residential use unless the structure is brought into compliance and the zoning requirements for primary dwellings are satisfied.
The board moved to the next agenda item after recording that the variance request would not be approved.
