The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special exception and two development variances after hearing hours of testimony about driveway easements, floodplain checks and utility locations.

At the hearing, the board granted Special Exception No. 598 to allow an accessory dwelling unit at 9894 East 300 South. Petitioner Chad Steinke told the board the ADU is intended “primarily to support my wife’s parents at that age,” saying the unit would preserve their independence while keeping them close to family. The board’s staff report explained the parcel lacks road frontage and that use of an existing easement rather than a public road raised legal and maintenance questions the board would consider.

Neighbor Jonathan Bishop objected, saying he opposed the request and raising legal and maintenance concerns tied to a recorded driveway-easement agreement that, he said, requires unanimous written consent from all parties for modifications. Bishop told the board, “I do oppose it,” and said approval would impose new maintenance obligations and possible liability on existing owners. The petitioner and nearby owners disagreed about who had paid for driveway work and whether additional traffic would be significant; Chad Steinke told the board he has invested in the property and said he would “take care of my elderly grandparents no matter what.”

After public testimony the BZA entered findings required by the Unified Development Ordinance and Indiana code and approved the special exception. Board members recorded their agreement in the findings process.

On variance 2390, applicant Tom Foster sought relief to build a deck and ramp that would extend closer to the road and the water than the UDO allows. Staff and the county building official noted the parcel is largely in a floodplain and described options for attaching the deck or using flood‑resistant materials; the building official said the applicant could pursue a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or build a detached deck with flood‑resistant materials. The board discussed utility proximity and directed that the property owner supply a letter from the sewer/utility company locating where the deck may be built and that a recorded “hold‑harmless” agreement (submitted through the highway/utility process) be filed before a building permit is issued. The board moved and voted to approve the variance with those conditions.

Variance 2391, a request from Joshua Jacobmeier to reduce the minimum dwelling size from 960 square feet to roughly 750–768 square feet to allow a handicap‑accessible layout, drew letters and in-person testimony from neighbors and supporters who described the home as a long‑used summer cottage adapted for older residents. The BZA approved the variance but one member, Chair Tom Griffiths, recorded a dissent on the practical‑difficulty finding.

Staff also briefed the board on a separate zoning-enforcement matter tied to newly placed gravel and driveway work at the ADU parcel. The board directed staff to issue a courtesy notice and to return with evidence and recommended next steps; members discussed whether to escalate to a formal zoning-violation process if there is no corrective action.

Votes at a glance
• Special Exception No. 598 (ADU at 9894 E. 300 S.): approved; findings entered (board members recorded agreement).
• Variance 2390 (deck/ramp, 9294 W. Lake Road): approved with conditions requiring a utility-location letter and a recorded hold‑harmless agreement before permit.
• Variance 2391 (dwelling size reduction, 1628 N. Fresh Air Drive): approved; one dissent recorded (Tom Griffiths).

What happens next
Applicants must submit required documentation (utility-location letter, recorded hold‑harmless document where specified) before permits will be issued. Staff will monitor the ADU driveway/gravel issue and may issue a zoning‑violation notice if corrective action is not taken after a courtesy notice.

Key quotes
“The accessory dwelling is intended primarily to support my wife’s parents at that age,” petitioner Chad Steinke said in support of the ADU request.
“I do oppose it,” neighbor Jonathan Bishop said, citing a recorded driveway agreement and potential maintenance and liability impacts for existing owners.

The board adjourned after routine administrative items and staff’s year‑end reporting.