Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request for oversized accessory dwelling and narrow manufactured home at Collins-Arbogast Road
Summary
The Clark County Board of Zoning Appeals denied two variances for a proposed accessory dwelling unit at 12000 Collins-Arbogast Rd.—one to exceed the 1,000 sq. ft. ADU limit and another to allow a manufactured home under the 22-ft width minimum—after neighbors and several board members raised concerns about precedent, drainage, and alternatives.
The Clark County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny two variance requests for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 12000 Collins-Arbogast Road in Pleasant Township.
Staff introduced Case BZA-2025-46, reporting the 6.52-acre parcel is zoned A-1 and that the applicant sought a variance to allow an ADU larger than the 1,000-square-foot maximum (Chapter 8, Section 802.02.063) and a variance to permit a manufactured home narrower than the 22-foot minimum required outside a manufactured-home park (Chapter 7, Section 732). Staff said the Health Department had approved site utilities and the county engineer raised drainage review items.
Tana Brenly, sworn as a witness for the applicant, said the ADU was intended to keep the property in the family after her father’s death and that the unit would be permanently sited with electric, plumbing, its own septic and use of the existing driveway. "If something were to happen to my mother, my daughter or brother could use the home," she said, explaining vendor choices constrained available width/length combinations.
Neighbor Jim King testified in opposition, citing concerns about drainage, precedent and neighborhood property values, and urging the board to deny the request. "Rules and laws were made for the good of the people; bending the rules set precedent," King said, adding that mobile homes can be abandoned once they outlive usefulness.
During deliberations, Board Member Gerald Shaw emphasized that accessory structures cannot be used to generate rent income and questioned whether the ADU could instead be built as a stick-built 1,000-square-foot structure or as an addition to the existing house. Ms. Breanne Parcels said applicants had alternatives and noted the requested size jump (1,190 sq. ft. proposed) and the requested width reduction (to 16 feet) were significant when compared to the code limits.
The board split the variance into two motions. A motion to approve the ADU exceeding 1,000 square feet failed (Yes: none; No: Parcels, Shaw, Frank). A separate motion to approve the variance to permit a manufactured home narrower than 22 feet also failed (Yes: Parcels; No: Shaw, Frank). Staff said they would contact the applicant the following day with next steps.
The board’s formal votes leave the applicant the option to pursue a conforming ADU, build an addition, select a different vendor, or return with amended plans and documentation. The board record notes conditions and engineering review would be required for any revised proposal.
