Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals grants multiple pole‑barn and accessory‑structure variances, denies at least one shipping‑container request

Valparaiso — The Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday approved a string of variance requests for pole barns and accessory structures across multiple townships while denying at least one application to retain shipping containers on a residential property.

Chair (first speaker) opened the meeting and moved through a docket that included six contested applications and several administrative appeals. The board repeatedly reiterated that “shipping containers are not allowed in Porter County,” and acted accordingly in two cases involving containers: one applicant received a six‑month temporary extension to remove three containers, and another was denied and ordered to remove containers within 30 days.

Why it matters: The board’s decisions affect where and how residents may store vehicles, farm equipment and household goods. Several approvals included conditions tied to site surveys, removal of existing sheds, inspection before issuance of a certificate of occupancy and explicit limits on nonresidential or living‑quarter uses.

What the board decided (highlights):

• Case DBDash2025Dash29 — three shipping containers, 77 E 150 S, Valparaiso (Morgan Township): The applicant was granted a six‑month extension to keep three on‑site while construction continues; the board required an update at that time and removal of the containers after the extension. Chair said he had been trying to accommodate the applicant “until construction was completed,” but emphasized long‑term county prohibition of containers.

• Case DVDash20225Dash58 — shipping containers and storage, 640 N 625 W, Hobart (Portage Township): Applicant Lucas Fonder said his house burned in March and he used containers to shelter feed and supplies while rebuilding. The board denied the request, citing the code prohibition, and ordered removal of the containers within 30 days. Fonder said he was “paying rent” elsewhere and estimated a rebuild could take eight months to a year; the board rejected a one‑year allowance, calling for a shorter removal timeline.

• Case DVDash2025Dash53 — side‑yard setback reduction, 752 W State Road 2, Hebron (Boone Township): Heidi Morrow and Hannah Morrow sought a reduction from 30 feet to 17 feet for a pole barn. The board approved the variance with conditions: the new pole barn must be sited at the surveyed 21.6‑foot line from the property edge and the old pole barn must be removed within 60 days of the new structure’s final approval; occupancy will be withheld until removal is verified.

• Case DBDash2025Dash71 — accessory structure height/floor area, 611 W 300 N, Porter Township: Michael Steghe told the board the building was intended for personal storage of a camper, boat and two Corvettes. The board approved the requested height and floor‑area variances with the condition that a 10×12 shed on the property be removed before final occupancy.

• Case BVDash2025Dash72 — 40×60 pole barn on 12.8 acres (Michigan City / Pine Township): Dawn (first name provided) said the pole barn would shelter farm equipment and animals and reduce fire risk. Although one neighbor filed an objection, the board approved the variance, limited the structure to nonresidential farming use and said it would inspect the property before issuing a CO.

• Case DBDash2025Dash73 — one‑lot administrative subdivision and front‑yard reduction, 946 S State Road 2 (Boone Township): The board approved an administrative subdivision to create a ~2.58‑acre parcel carved from a larger farm and allowed a reduced front‑yard setback because of an existing 50‑foot road right‑of‑way; the board noted additional development would require a major subdivision process.

• Case DVDash2025Dash79 — 30×110 accessory structure and height increase, 523 E US‑6 (Jackson Township): William Hanson requested to place an accessory structure in a front yard, raise the height limit to 23 feet to accommodate 12‑foot doors and keep an existing, grandfathered barn in the front yard. Hanson presented topographic and drainage reasons for siting the new house on a hill; the board approved all three requests and reiterated that the building must be used for farming only (no living quarters or business use).

In their remarks the board repeatedly balanced property‑use flexibility against zoning standards and site‑specific conditions. For example, the board tied approvals to surveys and removal of existing outbuildings and refused a long delay for removing containers even when applicants cited fires and rebuild timelines.

What applicants said: Lucas Fonder, whose house burned in March, said he was using containers to store feed and supplies and estimated the rebuild could take “8 months” to “a year.” Michael Steghe described his need to store recreational vehicles and said, “I have a camper. I'd like to store that in the whole barn.” William Hanson described his farm history and engineers' approach to drainage, asking the board to avoid demolishing a “perfectly good barn.”

Next steps: The board required applicants with conditional approvals to return with proof of compliance where applicable (surveys, structure removal, inspections). The meeting adjourned after the final case.