LaPorte County BZA directs enforcement after neighbors say auto shop exceeded variance

The LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 12 ordered the Building Commissioner to pursue enforcement against an automotive business at 305 West Johnson Road after neighbors' attorneys said the operation had materially exceeded the terms of a use variance granted Aug. 19, 2025.

Attorney Anthony Novak, representing Legacy Lane LLC and the Legacy Corporation, told the board the variance had been granted for a ‘‘small boutique automotive repair shop’’ but the property was now being used for ‘‘outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles, accumulation of dismantled parts, heavy equipment and semi‑truck storage’’ and other activities that exceed the approved use. ‘‘Here, the actual operation has materially departed from those representations and is no longer the approved small mechanic shop,’’ Novak said.

Respondent counsel Christopher Willoughby argued the board did not yet have the procedural basis to revoke the variance because the enforcement official had not issued stop‑work orders, fines or written findings. ‘‘There are no written commitments,’’ Willoughby told the board, and said the statutory and ordinance process requires an enforcement finding before revocation is appropriate.

Board members debated those competing legal positions and the neighborhood impact. President Melissa Mischke told the room she drives past the property frequently and described the site as ‘‘an eyesore’’ compared with representations made at the 2025 hearing. After discussion the board — on a motion directing the Building Commissioner ‘‘to take appropriate enforcement action on hours of operation and other items stipulated in the original use variance, with discretion to levy fines and report back in 60 days’’ — voted 4–1 to approve the directive. Building Commissioner Michael Polan said he would meet with county legal counsel and produce a report at the board’s July meeting.

Polan told the board his office had delayed enforcement actions in part because of litigation, survey needs and staff turnover but said the matter ‘‘cannot go on’’ unchanged. Novak told the board he had previously sent a December 2025 letter to the Building Commissioner detailing alleged violations and that some remediation only occurred when revocation became imminent.

Willoughby said his clients deny the threshold facts required for revocation and described what he called ongoing harassment of his clients by opponents. He said the proper sequence remains: enforcement official investigation, notices and potential stop‑work or fines, then a BZA hearing on enforcement actions if warranted.

The board’s motion did not itself revoke the 2025 variance; rather, it directed the Building Commissioner to use available enforcement tools and return with a written status report in 60 days. The board also notified both parties of its expectation that enforcement follow the Joint Zoning Ordinance provisions the attorneys raised at the hearing. The BZA meeting record shows a mix of written remonstrances on file and photographic evidence submitted by petitioners’ opponents.

Next step: Building Commissioner Michael Polan will consult county counsel and present an enforcement status report at the BZA’s July meeting.