Noble County board approves setback and shoreline variance for West Lake Point Drive property with runoff and harmless-clause conditions

The Noble County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 17 approved Development Standards Variance 2404, allowing reductions to required front, side and water setbacks for a dwelling at 0136 West Lake Point Drive.

The board granted relief from Unified Development Ordinance Article 2.22 to permit front setbacks as small as about 9.5 feet and 6.2 feet in parts of the building, a reduced water setback of 20.6 feet (down from the 75-foot requirement), and a four-foot side-yard setback for a 12-by-20 accessory shed. The decision came after staff identified floodplain and runoff concerns and after the board considered written neighbor comments about parking, private-lane impacts and alleged manure entering the lake.

Why it matters: The property lies within a floodplain and is formed of two very small parcels, which staff said has led to multiple development-standards variances within walking distance. Board members said the approval could set a practical precedent for other small lots in the same subdivision and therefore required specific mitigations before final approval.

In the staff report, Teresa said, "This entire area is in the flood plain," and recommended the applicants' runoff plans be reviewed by the county surveyor. Staff also noted limited on-site parking and past runoff problems in the immediate area.

Staff summarized written neighbor concerns brought to the record, saying residents reported worries about construction cleanliness, where parking would be located, maintenance of the private lane while heavy equipment uses it, and a desire to be informed of changes. Teresa also noted one commenter, Michael Kurtz, who said neighbors "watch them throw the horse product in the lake," and that dock spaces were reportedly being rented to non-lake property owners.

Petitioners Timothy Stearns and Michael Woods told the board they planned to demolish the existing single-story structure and rebuild within the same footprint as a two-story elevated dwelling with two-sided balconies and gravel parking. Stearns said they would use fencing and standard construction controls to limit impacts during work.

Board members pressed for protections against runoff and for a recorded liability protection. One member framed the harmless clause as a way to protect the county if a future road takeover or winter maintenance damaged structures built close to the road. The board adopted the motion to approve the findings of fact for variance 2404 with two explicit conditions: that the applicants' runoff/drainage plans be reviewed and approved by the county surveyor and that a recorded harmless clause be placed on the property.

A motion to approve the findings of fact (moved by Michael Kloppenstein) passed by voice vote with all members present agreeing. The board read aloud the findings required by the Unified Development Ordinance and recorded unanimous agreement from the members present.

What happens next: The approval is conditioned on the county surveyor's review of drainage plans and the recording of the harmless clause; those conditions must be satisfied before the variance is fully implemented. The board adjourned after completing the vote.