Jasper Board of Zoning Appeals approves three variances, limits frontage waiver to two‑lot split

The Jasper Board of Zoning Appeals on April 1 approved three variances affecting residential properties and a two‑lot agricultural division, with the board spelling out findings that each request met standard variance criteria under the city’s Unified Development Ordinance.

At the start of the public‑hearing docket, the chair reviewed the board’s procedures and incorporated the City of Jasper Unified Development Ordinance and the comprehensive plan into the record. No public remonstrators spoke on any of the three items.

Property owners Walter and Deborah Schneider, 601 South 400 West, asked the board to allow an accessory post‑frame building that would not match the primary dwelling’s brick finish. Deborah Schneider told the board they had moved the building 15 feet off the easement and planned a metal exterior with a 3‑foot wainscot to better match the house colors and neighboring accessory buildings. “We feel that would be better than trying to put brick that will not match the whole brick,” she said. The board noted similar accessory buildings nearby and voted to grant the variance from UDO Section 16.7.10.a.8 after Dennis Tedrow moved for approval and Jerry Miller seconded. The chair read findings that the board determined the variance would not injure public health, safety or welfare and that strict application of the UDO would result in practical difficulties.

The board next considered a side‑setback variance for Brent Fister at 735 Keisch Lane to allow a two‑car detached garage closer than the standard 15‑foot setback. Fister said the proposed garage would be brick to match his home and was needed in part because his teenage child will soon begin driving. The board clarified that setback measurements are typically taken from the roof overhang and discussed a compromise measurement; Jerry Miller moved to approve a variance to allow the accessory structure up to 6 feet from the property line, Dennis Tedrow seconded, and the board approved the motion, again stating the standard variance findings on the record.

Finally, Ethan Hope of Tri‑Mark Surveying presented a request on behalf of multiple owners (Dennis J. Whitman, Benjamin Bronicker, Jacqueline Ann Geisler, Gail Margaret Davis, Jeffrey Lee Bronicker and Stacy Josephine Smith) to reduce the A1‑district road‑frontage requirement from 180 feet to 50 feet. Hope said the owners planned an administrative two‑lot division of an 89.4‑acre tract to transfer family holdings and that dedicating additional right‑of‑way for future development did not make sense for the current division. The board's approval, moved by Andy Smith and seconded by Julie Dutchess, was conditioned that the variance apply only to this two‑lot division; any further subdivision would have to comply with the UDO frontage requirements and return to the board if necessary.

After the votes, the chair read the board’s standard findings of fact for each granted variance — that the variances would not injure public health, safety or welfare, would not substantially affect adjacent property values, and that strict enforcement of the UDO would create practical difficulties. The board also reminded the public of the comprehensive‑plan open house on April 25 at the River Center and set its next meeting for May 6, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned following a motion by Julie Dutchess.

What the board decided

• 601 South 400 West (Walter and Deborah Schneider): Variance granted to allow an accessory structure not to match the primary dwelling’s materials (UDO §16.7.10.a.8). Motion by Dennis Tedrow; second by Jerry Miller; outcome: approved.

• 735 Keisch Lane (Brent Fister): Side‑setback variance approved to permit an accessory structure up to 6 feet from the property line (variance from UDO §16.4.4.C). Motion by Jerry Miller; second by Dennis Tedrow; outcome: approved.

• North 500 West / 89.4‑acre tract (Whitman/Bronicker et al.): Lot‑frontage reduction from 180 feet to 50 feet for a two‑lot administrative division in the A1 district (UDO §16.4.2.c); approval limited to this two‑lot division. Motion by Andy Smith; second by Julie Dutchess; outcome: approved with condition.

Next steps and public input

The board’s approvals become part of the public record; any party seeking to alter the scope of an approved division or to pursue additional lots must return to the board and comply with UDO frontage and subdivision standards. The city will host an open house on the draft comprehensive plan and land‑use map April 25, 9–11 a.m. at the River Center for public comment.