Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Width Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board tables lot‑width variance after neighbors raise safety, procedural concerns
Summary
Jennings County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 21 tabled a request listed as 'Sasha McDonald' (the applicant identified herself as Sasha Walsh) for a 20‑ft lot‑width variance to allow a 130‑ft parcel where the 150‑ft minimum applies, following objections about safety and that the variance would chiefly benefit the seller. The case was set for June 18.
On May 21, 2026, the Jennings County Board of Zoning Appeals agreed to table a request for a 20‑foot lot‑width variance after several nearby property owners objected to the proposal and asked the board to visit the site.
The variance was listed on the agenda as a request from "Sasha McDonald" to allow a 130‑foot wide lot where the county’s 150‑foot minimum applies on West County Road 400 South in North Vernon; at the hearing the applicant identified herself as Sasha Walsh and said the 2.85‑acre parcel has a pending offer and that perk tests and a septic plan have been approved by the health department.
Neighbors cited longstanding zoning requirements and safety concerns. "If there's a 150‑ft cut off, that's what it is," neighbor Aaron Fox said, adding, "I'm a neighbor. I don't want a neighbor that close to me." Carl Balch Jr. and others described a steep hill and a narrow pullout on the nearby road and said they had pictures showing safety hazards. David Moran told the board the 150‑foot rule has been in place for years and that due diligence should have revealed the requirement earlier.
The applicant said the variance seeks to allow a sale and that the prospective buyer intends to build; she also said the site already has a driveway and that the seller has worked with a realtor. "We have an offer on the property," she said, noting septic approvals were in place.
After extended public comment, a board member moved to table the matter so members could view the property; the board set the case for reconsideration at its next meeting on June 18 at 6:00 p.m. The board advised the applicant she may reapply or appear at the June hearing; if she does not pursue a variance the existing structure or plans would remain noncompliant with the setback/lot‑width rules and could be subject to enforcement proceedings.
The hearing record shows the central items in dispute were the 150‑foot minimum lot‑width requirement, traffic and slope‑related safety concerns at the site, and whether the variance primarily benefits the seller rather than the neighborhood. The board did not vote on the variance itself and made no formal determination on the merits.
