Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request to build accessory pole barn on vacant Peach Trail lot
Summary
The board denied a petition by Sarah L. Thompson on Feb. 11 seeking to place a 30-by-50 accessory structure on a vacant lot prior to a primary dwelling; staff recommended denial citing risk the lot could be sold and used nonresidentially and noting the parcel is buildable for a home.
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The St. Joseph County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 11 denied a request to place a 30‑by‑50 metal accessory structure on a vacant 1.24‑acre lot on Peach Trail before a primary dwelling is established.
Area Plan Commission staff recommended denial, telling the board the subject parcel is buildable for a single-family home and that allowing a large accessory structure on a separate vacant lot raises the risk the lot could later be sold and used in ways inconsistent with the single-family character of the area. "We recommend denial," staff said, noting the vacant parcel could still be used for a future home and that suitable area exists on the petitioner's adjacent 8.94‑acre property for the requested accessory building.
Neighbor Eric Schertz testified he bought both parcels at auction and said placing the building across the street is materially cheaper for him because the other lot is flatter and has utility access; he described clearing and grading costs that would make building on the primary lot burdensome. "To have it right there, it'd be better for me," he said, describing trees and site conditions on the primary parcel.
Board members debated whether the two tax parcels could be treated as a single zoning lot; staff said the ordinance's definition of "block" prevents treating parcels on opposite sides of a street as a single zoning lot. Tom Byers moved to deny the variance in accordance with the staff report; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the request. The chair said the board would issue written findings explaining the denial.

