Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance 2396 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions Miller barn variance over potential wetland and setback issues; public urges stronger site plan or withdrawal
Summary
Variance 2396 for a livestock barn and turnaround drew staff warnings about possible wetlands and a surveyors recommendation for delineation; several board members and a public representative urged the applicant to withdraw and reapply with a better site plan.
The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals on March 4 opened discussion of Development-Standards Variance 2396, a request from Mr. Miller to allow a barn and gravel turnaround inside required separations and setbacks. Staff flagged potential wetland concerns and urged coordination with soil-and-water authorities and state agencies.
Staff showed site photos and soil maps and said the county’s wetland maps are old, advising the applicant to obtain a wetland delineation. The surveyor on record said the proposed north placement of the barn "will be very close if not located in the designated wet" and that a wetland delineation and mitigation could be required through IDNR/USACE if the building lies inside a wetland.
Highway staff and other reviewers recommended moving the barn north or west to meet required setbacks and reduce impacts on neighboring properties. "There’s plenty of land to move it west to comply with the ordinance," a plan commission member noted in the packet comments.
During public comment, Drew Fry, a representative of Paul Farms, criticized the application’s site plan and said the submission did not reflect responsible animal-agricultural siting for a substantial investment. "If you had a better site plan, would that have made a little bit of a difference for you?" a board member asked; Fry replied that a better plan would have helped and suggested the petitioner reconsider.
Several board members echoed that view, raising concerns that cutting trees or siting the barn in wet areas might create avoidable problems. One board member recommended withdrawing the application and returning with a revised plan showing feasible alternatives, better setbacks, and any necessary wetland delineation.
No final vote on Variance 2396 is recorded in the transcript; discussion in the meeting focused on resolving wetlands and setback questions and on whether the applicant should withdraw and reapply with a clearer site plan.
