BZA orders building commissioner to pursue enforcement after petitioners say Johnson Road repair shop exceeds approved use

The LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 on May 12 to direct the building commissioner's office to use its discretion to levy fines and pursue enforcement action against a business at 305 West Johnson Road after petitioners argued the operation had grown beyond the use variance the board granted last August.

Anthony Novak, representing Legacy Lane LLC and Legacy Corporation, told the board the approved permit was for "a small boutique automotive repair shop focused on specialty vehicles," but that the current operation now includes "outdoor storage of heavy equipment and commercial trucks, outdoor mechanical work, long-term storage of wrecked and inoperable vehicles, accumulation of debris, and operating beyond approved hours." Novak urged the BZA to act, saying the board has authority under the joint zoning ordinance and relevant case law to revoke a variance when its scope has been materially exceeded.

Responding, Christopher Willoughby, speaking for the respondents, argued the BZA lacked the procedural footing to revoke the variance immediately because the county's enforcement official had not made formal findings or issued stop-work orders. "We don't have any stop-work orders. We don't have any fines," Willoughby said, adding that remedies such as fines or injunctions require due process and discrete administrative actions.

Board members pressed both sides on where the legal standard for revocation begins and whether specific JZO conditions had been violated. County legal counsel advised the board that Article 26 of the JZO provides enforcement mechanisms, including injunctions, and that the BZA could pursue enforcement tied to conditions in section 14.05 when evidence supports that a permittee exceeded the permit's scope.

Chair (speaker 2) moved to "direct the building commissioner's office to use his discretion to levy fines and any enforcement of issues that were not being complied with from the initial use variance and to report back to this board in 60 days." The motion was amended to explicitly authorize enforcement of both the variance terms and other JZO noncompliance and passed, with the board instructing the building commissioner's office and legal counsel to meet promptly and return a progress report at the July meeting (60 days).

The board did not itself revoke the variance; rather, it authorized the enforcement process to proceed. The petitioner had also filed a related judicial appeal earlier that was dismissed on procedural grounds, Novak said.

Next steps: the building commissioner's office will investigate, may issue warnings, fines or stop-work orders as warranted, and will report progress to the BZA in 60 days. The record shows the BZA voted to direct enforcement rather than to effect immediate revocation, and the matter could still proceed to additional administrative or judicial steps depending on findings.