Board of Zoning Appeals (bza) - Regular Meeting

any appeals to order and ask for a roll call when you're ready, Danielle. Okay.

Randy Jones?

Present.

John Delberger?

Yes, here.

Charlie Brown? Here. Jane Gore? Here. Michael Harrison?

Here. All right. You all got a copy of the minutes at your place here. We also had them delivered to us electronically earlier. I did I'd entertain a motion to approve them as written, ma'am.

I move that we approve the minutes June 24th as submitted.

I'll second that. We'll call vote to approve minutes when you're ready, Danielle.

Darla Brown? Yes. Randy Jones?

Yes.

Jane Gore? Yes. John Dilberger? Yes. Michael Harrison?

Yes. All right. We don't have any old business on the agenda tonight, so we'll move to the new business items we have, of which there are several. The first is docket number 26-VAR-08, which is a request for approval of a setback variance. Whenever you're ready, Kayla, we'll hear your staff report.

Can you hear me okay? Yes. This is staff report for Wagner Variance Petition. Docket number 26-VAR-08. Hearing date, July 29th, 2026. Petitioners and property owners, Todd and Jill Wagner. Request is a variance from the rear setback requirement of 25 feet and from the side setback requirement of three feet. Ordinance provisions, section 3.6 variances and 4.6b and 4.7a standard setbacks of the Brown County zoning ordinance. Location, 7446 Honey Locust Drive, Nineveh, in Hamblin Township, within the Portree-Sweetwater Conservancy District. The property is located on the north side of Honey Locust Drive, approximately 600 feet west of the intersection with Hackberry Drive. Zoning and current land use, the property is zoned Lake Residential, LR, and has an existing home and garage on the property. General findings. 1. The Brown County Zoning Ordinance provides that the minimum distance between the rear line of structures and the rear property line should be no less than 25 feet. The minimum side setback requirement provided in the ordinance for an accessory structure is 3 feet. 2. Since new construction must meet current setback requirements, this request requires variance approval from the rear, lakeside, and left-north property line of the property. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow building one foot from the rear and one foot from the side property line. Three, the grilling area exists currently and the owners wish to allow construction of a 15 foot by 16 foot open-sided roof for the area to be used as protection from rain and sun, which they believe will make the area more usable. Four, there are many examples of reduced setbacks for pre-existing and for new construction within the Corddry-Sweetwater Conservancy District nearby. Five, according to the site plan, the front and right side setback will be met. The board may grant a variance with respect to specific property if, after conducting a hearing under Section 7.2 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance, it finds that One, there are special circumstances relating to the property that do not generally affect other property or other uses of the same kind in the same district and vicinity. Two, the special circumstances create hardship in that if the variance is not granted, a substantial property right that is enjoyed by other properties in that district and vicinity cannot be enjoyed. Three, the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property or uses in that district and vicinity. Summary, there are many examples of reduced setbacks within the lake residential zoning district. However, the board must decide if allowing a setback of one foot on the rear and one foot on the side property line will be materially injurious to other properties in that district and vicinity. This is the copy of the plot plan. You guys should have that in your packets. It's existing here on the left and then the proposed, just the roof structure on the right. Pardon? Again, existing on the left, proposed on the right. This is just another copy of the plot plan that you have in your packet. And then the white is the property that we're looking at here today. And again, the purple squares are variances that have been approved. And that's the end of that staff report.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any questions from the board for Danielle?

I've got a couple.

Kayla, I'm sorry.

So the plan is to tear down the existing decorative concrete wall, I'm calling it, that's there currently, whatever that is. And so their intent is to put in the roof, right? Yes, that's how I understand it. Okay, but how much?

It looks like they've also elevated the pad a couple of feet because you no longer see the retaining wall on the lake there.

So how much higher is the roof going to be than what is there now? We can ask the petitioner. I know he's here.

Okay. Yep, I'll wait and ask the petitioner.

I want cards. Petitioner sent out 14, 11 were returned.

plot plan I assume that yellow I'm sorry that pink lines define the property boundaries or pink or future or whatever it is I don't know what yes it's weird I guess they do and this must be the actual boundary yeah okay but this is I guess we'll have to ask the commissioner on that too

Unless Danielle knows. Do you know what the pink and the blue lines are on that? Talk about this one here. The first one.

I was trying to get back to that one for some reason. I cannot get back there.

I'm just assuming that they're letting you use the property boundaries.

Yes, and then I believe the property boundaries as shown on GIS and then the platted, the actual property boundaries. Because sometimes those boundaries go out into the lake and it's hard to measure from. And we can definitely ask the petitioner if that's accurate.

All right. I don't hear any other questions from the board. So the petitioner's here tonight, correct? Yes. Yes, sir. Would you come up the microphone and just identify yourself for our recording? And if there's anything you'd like to have us share with us that Danielle hasn't talked about, or Danielle, Kayla hasn't talked about, we'd be happy to hear it.

My name's Todd Wagner. I've been... on their property. My father and mother owned it for 20 years and I've had it for six. We had to replace the concrete due to it being installed in 1955 and it was collapsing into the lake and it was kind of an unsafe situation. while that was going on, and that wall has been there since the mid-50s as well. We did not raise...

This is the decorative concrete wall that Darla was referring to?

Yes, it is. It's just a different perspective of the picture that was taken. The elevation has not changed in any way, shape, or form. We did our due diligence of removing all the concrete, so none of that had to be done. It is not only that, but we also couldn't raise it because of this embasement that is in the structure as well. Basically, There's no really visual hindrance for the neighbors. The roof itself is only gonna be six inches in height. It actually, the adjacent neighbors would almost improve their vision of not having my kids run around screaming and yelling on the deck or anything like that. So there's no real visual change from any of the corrections. It's a very thin roof. It's really just so I can grow out there and do that in the rain. Other than that, it will be a visual improvement to the property itself. It's just six inches tall with another roof at the top. It was structurally engineered with six that are small and not very big columns or anything like that. Any other questions?

So is it already constructed?

It is not. The wall was falling in the lake and was not structurally sound anymore, so we went ahead and decided to make the decision to make that move. The reason the decorative 1950s concrete wall had to come out is it was eroding and it was almost, could potentially over time be a hazard to the neighbors. I put the planners and stuff up there just so there could be somewhat privacy for the neighbors and willing to do anything that makes everyone happy related to the rules and regulations. Your question on the height, it's going to be eight foot six to nine feet, and that still would meet the requirement for the corduroy conservancy, if I'm built a dock out there that's the height requirement from the water level to the height of the highest structure which is I believe 14 and a half feet. It would not even exceed that even if it was out right in front. So there's no real appealing visual hindrance for anyone other than if you're out in the middle of the lake and look back at the house, you're not going to see six inches of the existing structure behind it.

I see. I had a question. It looks like it's only the southwest corner of this roof that gets into the closer to the 3D.

It is. Unfortunately, where my grills would set, it meets the requirement at the very end because the property is angled. And actually our neighbors actually have the dog three foot on my property, but that's not a big deal. It's just for me because of the way, and you can see it on their drawing, it angles. In order for me to cover the grill, that's the one foot. And if that doesn't, I can notch the roof three foot in that section and... My green egg can handle getting a little wet. So if you need that as a provisional change to what I presented, I'm willing to do that as well.

So the grill is actually fixed in place? It is not.

It is movable. It just made good visual sense.

to not but if it needs to be i can certainly make some adjustments that's kind of why we're here today okay um all right i appreciate that um any other questions for the petitioner from the board before you sit down mr wagner we we received an email from nancy hill who's the name Oh, well, in that case, I won't read your email into the record.

Any other questions?

So you don't have concerns anymore?

No, they want to speak. Oh, okay. Yes, we have concerns. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. Let's see. Well, first, is there anybody here who wants to speak in favor of this petition? Okay. Then if you folks would like to speak your concerns, please let us hear them.

She can't hear anything that's been said. Oh, okay. So I'll speak for her.

All right. We can bring the microphone to her if she is more comfortable sitting.

Well, my father purchased that property in 1955 for $500.

And before the lake was over there, it was much creep going through.

And right now, the way that that roof is designed on that cover with grills, will actually be injurious to our property because it brings it close to the property line and all the runoff will come over onto our property. And if you go back to the one picture of the deck down there on the seawall, that will drip over there onto our decking. So if it's pulled back, you know, according to the law, then it won't impede, you know, it won't have any runoff coming onto our property. But the way that I see it designed, it slopes and goes. The water runs off over towards our side. And so if it's pulled back, it moves the rails back and then pulls the roof back a little bit. It will be able to splash down on its own property and not on ours.

Okay. It would wash. Yeah.

It would wash them off. That's basically it. Is there anything else that you want to say?

Yes. We had no problem with the shelter. The problem is with the drainage. The way it's slanted, it will slant into my property and wash out the yard with the raining. If they could slant it toward the lake or slant it toward the other side of their property, which is cement, that would be favorable to us. That's the only objection I have is the slanting of the roof and the water went off into our yard. Okay, I understand, thank you.

Thank you. And she's Nancy Hill, what was your name? Jeff Hill. Jeff Hill.

All right. Is there anybody else here tonight who wants to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody, so I'll bring this back to us on the board to consider. One question. Mr. Wagner, if you'd come up just for a minute.

Thanks. Just so the roof is intended to have gutter, there will be literally no runoff or anything that would go. I've been building quite a few years in my career and I don't even want a runner coming down because if I'm in there when the girl's coming and the water's coming down, not a good thing. So I would make sure that that would not be a concern. Okay.

And so where would you put the gutter in that?

It would just go on the back and then it would naturally flow into the lake like many of the dock covers and stuff have. So there would be virtually nothing there. As a matter of fact, if you look at the drawing, it would be About 85% of this is almost three foot back from the right of way line anyway. We're really here for that two foot one corner and I would still have a gutter there and make sure that nothing would go that way. And the whole property is all slanted, 90% of it. So there's really not much opportunity for a motion, but I would make sure that that would all be taken care of.

Thank you. All right, I'm gonna bring this back to us to discuss and make a decision on. Thoughts?

Well, I'll speak first. Yeah, go ahead, Mike. I've said previously that I don't ever see a circumstance where I would agree to having the size set back less than the three foot for an accessory building. The one foot on the back, the Conservancy group has already approved that, so you've got structures there already. So I find the one foot unacceptable. Darla?

I don't have a problem with it as long as the petitioner agrees to install the guttering on at least the back. I assume he means the north side of the road.

It'd be the west side that fronts up against the neighboring property where they have a concern. Okay. So I would expect there to be a guttering along the west side to carry the water anywhere but off the west side. And I think that's what I heard Mr. Wagner say. Does that? That's correct. Okay.

I'd like to, she has another comment. I'd like to do that.

Sure, would you take that microphone over to her, Kaylin?

Here, you can stay right there.

Oh, well, thank you.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure that the guttering is on the other side of the property, not on my side of the property. So that if anything puts a guttering up, it would be over on the other side, directed to the lake. I would not like the guttering on my side of it.

Well, the guttering is intended to catch any water that comes off the roof and carry it away rather than dropping it on the ground. So I was assuming you wanted it protected so it didn't run off on your property. Right. Okay. Exactly. I think it's a semantic thing, but go ahead.

Perhaps if it's installed and then the guttering is such that it doesn't dump it directly into the lake, it comes down. Right under our property, that's the question, because you don't know what's going to happen in the future as far as the way it's installed. So how are we going to be able to follow up to make sure that it's being done like we're talking about?

Well, assuming that Mr. Wagner agrees, which I've heard him say he would, we would perhaps, if we decided to approve this variance, then we would approve it with the condition that he installs something to carry any runoff water from the roof away from your property. And I'd leave it ambiguous like that for him to figure out how best he wants to do that. Thank you. Sure. So, Randy, your thoughts?

Well, I did have some reservations. I want to echo what Mike was saying. It's pretty close. However, given Mr. Wagner's Testimony of how he intends to address this issue that has been brought about by the Hills. I'm inclined to go ahead and vote in support of this. Because I'm hoping and I think that will address the issue.

The runoff issue?

The runoff issue, yes.

And you're okay with the variance from the setback requirement? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes, I am. Jane?

One foot, three feet. It's very little difference, so I'm okay with it. It's a little close, but as long as he does the guttering.

I guess I'm more in Michael's camp. I heard Mr. Wagner say that he understood that he could manage to create a roof that would maintain the three foot setback, and to me, then, there's no question here that that's what we all There's circumstances or some terrible hardship that means he can't install his roof without crossing over the three-foot setback. So I'm inclined to approve it with the condition that the roof line is modified so that it remains three feet setback from the property line. I prefer not to grant a variance to our ordinance simply for convenience, not just my preference. That's what our ordinance requires of us. So I guess I'm in Michael's camp on this one.

It seems to me that if he could make the thing 13 by 16 instead of 15 by 16, that's not a hardship. And you're still conforming with the three foot?

That's an option. You can just pull it back three feet by cutting that little corner off. You can make it a trapezoid instead of a rectangle and make it three feet all the way along from the property line. There's lots of options to stay within the setback requirement. And Mr. Wagner is willing to do that.

Which would negate the need for the variance for a setback.

It would? From the side only. From the side, yeah.

From the side only, yes.

I like Michael.

I have no problem with the rear setback. No problem at all.

So can you live with that? What's your proposing? Or what's your explanation?

I would propose that I'm happy to grant a variance from the rear setback. I would like to deny a variance from the side setback. runoff from the roof flowing onto the neighboring property to the west. Yes. That's my input. I think it's very reasonable.

Okay.

I'll go for it. Go for it. Oh, you mean I've got to put in a motion?

Yep. Yeah, you do.

All right. I'm going to approve that we I'm going to move that we approve the request for a variance from the rear setback requirement. but that we deny the request for a variance from the side setback requirement, and that our approval of the rear setback variance is conditioned upon the petitioners installing guttering of some sort that will prevent water from running off of the roof onto the property to the west owned by the Hills. Second.

I'm a little confused. Okay. Disapproving the side setback. Yes. Does that mean, how would he proceed with, if we accept this, how would the petitioner proceed?

He would have to redesign a roof that does not encroach more than three feet on the side setback.

Okay.

I understand.

Which he's indicated he'd do. He's giving a thumbs up.

Second. All right, we have a motion that's been seconded to approve the rear setback variance, deny the side setback variance, and include a condition that guttering be installed to prevent runoff onto the property of the west. Roll call vote when you're ready.

Randy Jones?

Yes.

Ben Gore? Yes. John Bilberger? Yes. Michael Harrison? Yes. Darla Brown? Yes. Great.

You've been partly approved.

And then since that's a condition of approval, I'll give you guys our cards, so if you do have issues.

The next item on our agenda tonight is docket number 26-VAR-09, which is a request for approval from a setback variance. staff report when you're ready, Kayla.

They've added us another screen up here for you guys to see, and it's hard to get all of them working at the same time. I don't know how to work either. Okay. We may have to go old school and pull the big monitor back toward you guys.

So we can see the little screen of the big monitor? Yeah.

All right.

Yes, please.

You want one? Just watch out and don't hit the other TV with it. Yeah, I did that yesterday.

You say that like there's room, and there isn't. I know. Okay, push the other TV back.

Okay, push your side that way.

Thank you.

Is that okay? Yeah, that works really well. I just turned it off. I moved it too hard yesterday and hid it into the new TV.

So this is me and my tinnitus is acting up, so I'm going to move up here.

And then for the audience, the slideshows are still on the two screens on the side as well. You ready for me?

Yes, ready for you.

All right, staff report for Randolph variance petition, docket number 26-VAR-09. Hearing date, July 29th, 2026. Petitioner and property owner, Scott Randolph. Request is a variance from the front setback requirement. Ordinance provisions, section 4.6A of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance, titled Standard Setbacks. Location, the property is located at 8722 State Road 135 South, Freetown, in Van Buren Township. The home is located on the south side of the highway, approximately 350 feet west of the intersection of Bexbrook Road, Bob Allen Road and State Road 135 South. Zoning and currently in use, the property is zoned primary residential R1 with an existing home. General findings, one, section 4.6A, titled Standard Setbacks in the Brown County Zoning Ordinance, provides that the minimum distance between the front line of a building and the center line of State Road 135 is 75 feet. Two, the petitioner is requesting a variance from the front setback requirement and wishes to build an accessory building a minimum of 65 feet from the center line of State Road 135 South. Three, the statement of request explains that the petitioner wishes to build a 40 foot by 52 foot pole barn for storage and maintenance of personal vehicles. It is further explained that the site has been prepped which required 53 loads of filter to level the proposed construction site. 4. If the building were to meet the setback requirement of 75 feet, there is an additional 10 feet that would need to be built up to the same elevation of approximately 753 feet. The elevation change for the 10 additional feet required to meet the setback is approximately just over 1.5 feet, which equals a 15% slope. Five, the areas with a lesser slope are unbuildable because of the location of the existing home and septic system. Six, according to the site plan, the rear and side setbacks will be exceeded. The reduced setback extends toward the road and not toward neighboring property. Seven, there are examples of reduced setbacks adjacent to the subject parcel for both a residence and an accessory building. There's a barn directly north of the petitioner's property that measures 57 feet from the centerline of the road. The home to the east sits at the intersection and measures 56 feet and 67 feet from the centerline of the highway. Eight, water is provided to the home by Jackson County Water. Jackson County REMC provides electric to the property. Do you guys want me to read through the variances? Recommendation, staff finds no evidence that approval of this variance will have any impact on neighboring property owners in the same district and vicinity as neighboring properties have structures within the required 75 foot setbacks and the reduced setback will extend toward the highway. All right, there's a picture of the proposed site. East from the driveway and this is on 135 South. West from the driveway. And then I put the North on this side because that's facing North. And then the petitioner provided this Picture here, the flags indicate the 10 feet. So he wishes to build at the 65 foot mark, which is toward the front. The 75 foot would push him 10 feet.

75 is the grab hold, oh never mind.

Is the second. That's the elevation profile from the GIS, which is a really neat tool if you guys ever get interested in looking at that. I did have to figure this slope out on my own though, so that was pretty rough. So that's just a further away view. So this red line, that's 135 south. Bob Allen goes to the north, and then Bexgrove cuts off to the east there. So the white is the property we're talking about here. And then this next one, so the white again is the property we're talking about, 57 feet to the barn directly to the north. And then there are two setbacks on the house because it's a corner lot. So 56 feet and 67 feet. And then there were a few more examples further down, but they had other roads that they were connecting with, so I didn't I just wanted to pull these three out.

That's totally my artwork. I think it's a great job. Thank you.

Alright, that's the end of the staff report.

Can I say something just real quick? Yes. If you go to the back where it says, I may be reading this wrong, but I don't think I am. The elevation change from the 10 additional feet is approximately one and a half feet. Now, Kayla, are you talking about if I were trying to extend the south side of the building plan?

So in that 10 feet from the 75 foot setback to the 65 foot setback.

Then I misunderstood. It's one and a half feet. I thought you were referring to the other side.

Nope. Does that make sense?

I think I understand. I'm pretty sure I do. All right. Any questions from the board for Taylor? I'll ask for Jane. How many cards?

Eleven were sent out. Three were returned.

Okay. Wow. I don't know. Yes, sir. Is there anything you'd like to add to Caleb's report that you want us to know? And if you do, go to the microphone at least because we're recording this. Although you have a very loud voice and I'm sure it's picking up.

So just a couple things. The reason it is loud, isn't it? The reason I don't want to shift to the south. There you go. Testing, testing. The reason I don't want to shift to the south is The entire area to the south is very low. It stays very wet. And when the construction company did the site work, they said, don't go any further south than this. It'll start washing out. It's just going to be a problem. The other thing, I don't know if the pictures showed it. There is basically a little brushy area between what would be the north side. You can see a little bit of it there. On the left. That's all brush that is between the road and the building or where it would be. I have no intention of changing that. It's going to stay brush. I'm not clearing that out. The building itself will not have any kind of access doors on the north wall. Nothing. So the 65 feet is the closest anything's ever going to be to the road. There will be no door, there will be no driveway to the door, there will be no cars at the north, or nothing on the north side of it.

All right. Sounds good. Anybody on the board have questions for the commissioner?

So the hedgerow that we're looking at here, that's on your land?

Yes. Okay. Okay. And as long as the picture is showing it, if you look towards the back of that building site, there's also kind of a brush row right there. Even that's staying. What you see in the picture is how it's going to stay. Got it.

Didn't there used to be a gas station or a market or something there?

Next door.

Okay.

So you want it for some buffering? I want what for? You want to leave the brushing all in there for some buffering or just?

Well, because I don't really want to get, well, that is true. But at the same time, I just don't want to get rid of it. If you, I think, whatever picture was up a second ago that showed, yeah, so you see those two nice big trees? I had to give up the one that was in the middle to have that to lane that goes that way. If I have to shift to the south, which is a very bad idea, I'm gonna have to also change that driveway some to the south, and I'm gonna get into the drip line of that tree, and that tree probably will not survive. And I like my trees.

Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody here tonight who wants to speak to this petition, either in favor or against? I don't see anyone, so I'll bring it back to us to talk about it.

Jane. It seems like he's got enough barrier there. Okay. At this point, I don't have a problem with that.

Okay. All right. Randy? Well, as variance goes, this one seems to be fairly generic. I don't see anything here that stands out of any kind of red flags or anything. So I don't really have a concern as it's been submitted. Okay. Dora?

I don't have an issue with it. I agree with Jane. The buffering helps me out a little bit with the desire to grant competition. Okay.

Michael? Well, I came in not in favor of this, but I get swayed, so...

Yeah, yeah. No, somebody took it. I can't help it. I also don't have a problem with this. I'm swayed largely because this neighbor across the road's got an accessory building that's closer to the road than this, and this neighbor next door down the in this little area it appears that that is the norm and that that is a substantial property right enjoyed by those neighbors and if I don't grant him his variance he won't be able to enjoy that substantial property right so I'm also inclined to grant it

Submitted by Scott Randolph for a variance front setback. I move that we approve this variance request. Second.

We'll call the vote when you're ready, Danielle.

Okay. Jane Gore? Yes. John Dillberger? Yes. Michael Harrison?

Yes.

Ronald Brown? Yes. Randy Jones?

Yes. Okay. Your request is approved. I thank you all very much for your time, and I apologize for coming into your meeting late. I got wrapped up in some work stuff that they were very adamant that I not leave.

And you can apply for your billing permit whenever?

Well, he said he would take care of it right there in your office, remember? I said what? We were talking about all this in your office, and I asked if there was a period of time I had to wait.

No.

And he said, oh, no, I'll take care of that for you. But if I need to do something, I will.

You still have to pay for it. Yeah. I'll see if Danielle or Logan can call you before the end of the week. Okay. With everything done.

No, but as far as my... You can order the building. Get started. Okay. It's not like they're ready to drop. They actually were ready. The building wouldn't be done by now, but that's okay. Always check first. What's that? Always check first. Well, I didn't... She'll tell you, I came in and it was all new to me. And that went great. Yeah.

Yeah.

The next item for us is document number 26-VAR-10. This is also a request for a setback variance. And we'll be happy to hear your staff report whenever you're ready, Kayla.

All right. This is a staff report for Hemminger variance petition. Did I say that right? Yes, you got it right. Thank you. Hearing date, July 29th, 2026. Petitioners and property owners, Kyle and Valdavia Hemminger, requested a variance from the 50 foot setback requirement from the center of the road. Ordinance provisions, sections 4.6A, standard setbacks, and 3.6, variances of the Brown County zoning ordinance. Location, 4517 Weber Hill Road, Trafalgar, is situated on the south side of the road in Hamblin Township. approximately 350 feet west of the intersection of Weber Hill Road and Upper Salt Creek Road. Zoning and current land use, the property consists of 10 acres and is zoned secondary residential R2 with an existing residence, barn, and pond. General findings, one, the Brown County Zoning Ordinance requires that the minimum distance between the front line of structures and the center of the road be 50 feet. Two, the petitioners are requesting to allow the front porch of the new addition to remain with the post approximately 44 feet from the center line of the road. Three, the northeast corner of the existing residence is approximately 27 feet from the center line of the road. The large barn that sits on the same parcel measures approximately 31 feet from the center line of the road. Four, the petitioners obtain a building permit for an addition and remodel of their existing residence. Five, by ordinance, all new construction must meet current setback requirements. Staff mistakenly issued the permit with the existing setback since the building was not going to further encroach on the front setback. Prior to issuance of the building permit, staff should have ensured that the new construction met the current ordinance requirements. Six, when the building inspector went out to complete the inspection, the petitioner was given two options to come into compliance with the setback requirements. The petitioner decided to apply for a variance rather than to angle the porch post back to the house so that the porch and post would meet the 50-foot setback requirement. Approval of the variance would allow for a safer ingress and egress by allowing a landing at the entrance of the home. Seven, according to the site plan, all other setbacks will remain met. Those are not including the front setbacks, which have never been met. So sides and rear setbacks. Section 3.6 of the Brown County, we won't read that again. Summary, the petitioners are requesting a difference in the setback requirement of approximately six feet to ensure safe ingress and egress to the residents. There are examples of greatly reduced setbacks on the same property. All right, that's looking from the driveway. Looking from the driveway toward the intersection of Weber Hill Road and Upper Salt Creek Road. And looking west from the driveway. This is the barn that's on the same property. Picture of the house. There's the site plan. So they show where the septic is and then 28 by 44 room addition. In this picture, the house is here. So that large barn is the structure here. And that is the end of the staff report.

Thank you, Caleb. Any questions from the board for Caleb? I don't have any. No, I don't have any. Are the petitioners here tonight? Jane asked about cards. Oh, I'm sorry, Jane, go ahead.

Eight were sent, five were returned.

Yes, sir. Is there anything you'd like to add to Kayla's staff report that you think we ought to know?

No, I just appreciate the due diligence. You did a great job, and I thank her for that.

Okay. All right. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak either for or against this petition tonight? I don't see anybody, so I'll bring it back to us to talk.

I don't have a problem with this.

I don't either.

Randy? Yeah, I need some context here a little bit. Kayla on number three and number five under general findings. The existing residents, they've been there for quite a while, I assume. As far as I know. And I'm saying that's probably the reason for... It was already a violation in terms of...

Correct. Okay. And I am the staff in the staff report who made the mistake.

I'm sorry, do what?

I'm the staff that made the mistake.

Well, that's immaterial. I don't care. That's not what I'm going for. Okay, so this is basically... Okay. I think I just want to do this one on hand, so I don't have any further.

Okay.

Jamie, any thoughts?

No, I don't have a problem with it.

Okay. I also do not have a problem with this. So I'll move that we approve docket number 26-VAR-10, a request for approval from a setback variance. I'll second. All right. Roll call vote when you are ready, Danielle.

Okay. John Zellberger?

Yes.

Michael Harrison?

Yes.

Charles Brown? Yes. Randy Jones?

Yes.

Jane Gore? Yes. All right.

You're approved. Thank you very much. We really appreciate you guys. Okay. Next item tonight is another request for a variance, this time from Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements. This is docket number 26-VAR-11. Whenever you are ready, Kayla will have your staff report.

Okay.

All right, this is me. This is the staff report for Paradise Variance Petition. Docket number 26-VAR-11. Hearing date, July 29th, 2026. Petitioners and property owners, William and Taryn Paradise. Request is a variance from the ADU requirements. Ordinance provisions, section 3.2c of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance titled Accessory Uses. Location, the property is located at 2925 Lawson Ridge Road, Nashville, in Hamblin Township, and is approximately 3,300 feet northeast of the intersection of Lawson Ridge Road and Less Traveled Road. Zoning and current land use, the property is zoned secondary residential R2 with two existing homes, an accessory building, and a lake. General findings. One, in August 2023, the petitioners were granted a building permit to allow construction of another residence on their 22.25 acres. This secondary residence was permitted as an accessory dwelling unit. Section 3.2 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance titled Accessory Uses states, accessory buildings may not be used or designed for human occupancy and accessory uses involving human occupancy may not be established except as permitted in this part of Section 3.2. In all zoning districts, one accessory dwelling unit may be established on a lot. The minimum total floor area shall be 400 square feet. The maximum total floor area shall be the lesser area of 1,300 square feet or 75% of the primary building's total floor area. The accessory dwelling unit shall be served by a community sewage disposal system or by an individual sewage disposal system. The accessory dwelling unit may be served by the primary uses individual sewage disposal system if the system is appropriately sized and found to be in compliance with the Brown County Septic Ordinance. The height and setback standards of Chapter 4 of the zoning ordinance apply to the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit must remain accessory to the primary use and should not be sold separately or otherwise divided from the primary use. Accessory dwelling units may not be used as tourist homes or for other short-term rental purposes. Accessory dwelling units may be rented for minimum rental periods or terms of 31 days. Three, the petitioners are requesting a variance from the requirement prohibiting the separation of the primary and the accessory dwelling unit. Four, the statement of request explains that the two homes share only a mailing address and that they have separate driveways, utilities, and septic systems. The homes are approximately 365 feet from one another when measured by a straight line on the GIFs. 5. The petitioners wish to split the property into two lots. They wish to remain living in the accessory dwelling unit on 17.25 acres while they sell the primary home on 5 acres. 6. If the variance is approved, the division of property will be exempt from the subdivision control ordinance as both lots would exceed the minimum lot size and there is approximately 1,280 feet of road frontage on Lawson Ridge Road, which is a public road. And then we will skip the variance part. Summary, the board must determine whether there are special circumstances that create a hardship and whether granting the variance will be materially injurious to other property or uses in that same district and vicinity. Primary residence. This is the driveway, the house here. And then this over here is actually the end of the public road. So it does not go any further than. Well, that's why it looked like a driveway on my map. Yes. Got it. It definitely feels like a driveway when you're driving up there, too. So very quiet up there. This is the view from the primary residence looking toward the ADU. No view. This is a picture from the center line of the road, and then this is the accessory dwelling unit here. This is looking from the driveway from the ADU back up toward the primary. This is looking back on Lawson Ridge Road to the south. This is the existing parcel. So the red roof here is the primary. This is the accessory dwelling unit, septic systems for and then this is the barn and the property. These are the proposed parcels. So this is just from my map, but showing about 75 feet from the barn. So it would be primary residence, this five-ish acres, and then the remainder with the accessory dwelling unit, the lake and the garage. Got it.

So could you go back to the last one? The angled line there is the proposed value for the new separation?

Approximately. Approximately? Yeah. I'm not a surveyor, though. Okay. And theirs is much prettier than mine, but the five acres is shown on this map here. Gotcha. Gotcha.

Okay. I understand. It hasn't been surveyed yet, though.

So it has been surveyed. I believe the property, and I know the petitioners and I believe the realtor is here as well, but I believe the property was up for sale and then we realized, okay, we need to get some approvals here before anything else happens. So I believe this has already been recorded as well.

Okay. So the property has already been subdivided. It's two parts.

It has not made it to our map yet because it's not allowed yet.

Got it, okay. I know about that. I think I got it.

Would you say that again? So if the GIS coordinator or the county surveyor have any questions about property splits, even if they've been approved through all areas downstairs, they don't physically split them on our GIS map until, if they've got questions, they ask them before they...

Okay. Separate them. Got it.

Yeah.

So it has been separated into two parcels, but it hasn't made it to the map yet?

Yes. Got it. Because it's waiting for our approval.

Correct. Got it. Okay. And I'm not sure if the property's pending or anything like that.

Okay. I have a question about this item three, about the variance from the requirements about... not be able to separate them. Is that something that's in the subdivision reg? No.

No, it's in this section 3.2c that Kayla quoted in full for us here. Right down near the bottom there it says the accessory dwelling unit must remain accessible to primary use and shall not be sold separately or otherwise divided from its primary use. On the other hand, I believe everybody in the county's got the right to subdivide their property, provided it complies with the ordinance. So we have a conflict between the accessory dwelling unit part of the ordinance and the right of subdivision of your property part of the ordinance. Got it. Dave, do you want to opine on this? If you don't feel the need to give us the benefit of any wisdom, that's fine.

I don't feel the need at this time. I understand.

You don't see the need at this time to... He thinks we're perfectly capable of resolving this conflict. You're giving us... Okay, I wasn't expecting that. I'm not used to it. All right, gotcha.

All right. Any other questions for Kayla from the board?

I think I'm missing something because it says that it can't be used as a dwelling, yet it is.

No, it says it can be used as a dwelling. It can't be used as a temporary dwelling. It can be used as a full-time dwelling or it can be rented as a long-term rental, shall we say, at least a month or more. It can't be used as a short-term rent.

Accessory uses involving human occupancy may not be established except for what's allowed right below that. Gotcha. All right.

This petitioner is here tonight? Yes, ma'am. Is there anything you'd like to add to Kayla's report?

I don't think so. It was pretty comprehensive.

Okay. All right. You're batting nearly a thousand percent tonight, Kayla. Thank you. That's different. Very much so. Any of the other people in the audience want to speak for or against this petition?

My name is Sterling Miner.

Would you come up to the microphone because we record these for minutes.

My name is Sterling Miner and I'm a REMAX team broker owner and I'm representing her in the hopes of selling the main residence once this is sorted out. The only thing I might add is that the back side of the property where you see that driveway end is an all nature conservancy. So there are no neighbors back there that would ever be impeding or visually impeding or anything like that. Okay.

Thank you for that. I'm okay with it.

I'm okay. I mean, when I think of an accessory dwelling, I think of like a mother-in-law house just like right next door. These are for practical purposes. They're being treated as two separate residences anyway. And as long as they do have and have had their own septic utilities, driveway... I mean, I don't see a problem with excluding the person and treating them as separate residents. They're already being kind of treated as separate residents anyway, so I don't have a problem with that.

Okay. Randy? I do have a question. Is there one septic system? Two. There are two separate systems. Okay. And the one was put in earlier, the other one, or about the same time?

No. The primary was built in 2014, so the septic was put in then. Okay. And then this one for the ADU was in 2023.

Okay. All right. That's all I got. Thank you. Okay. Jane, where are you on this one?

Well, I don't think it's anything more than just a division of property. There's five acres. I mean, sufficient land. Not undersized or anything. Just that it's a little peculiar.

Yes.

We're used to peculiar.

We are.

We are. We are the BZA. That's why we're here. I think we're in a situation that was not envisioned when Section 3.2 of the ordinance was drafted. That's not unusual. Ordinances are drafted based on the imagination of those who are writing the ordinance to try to imagine anything that might happen in the future. I think they didn't see this one. I cannot believe that they intended to prevent a property owner from subdividing his or her property. That was not ever the intent of section 3.2c, so I am also inclined to approve this.

Okay, I move that we approve docket 26-VAR-11 for a variance from the accessory dwelling unit requirements.

I will second that motion. A roll call vote, please. Danielle.

Okay. Michael Harrison.

Yes.

Darla Brown. Yes. Randy Jones.

Yes.

Jane Gore. Yes. John Dilberger.

Yes. Your request is approved.

Thank you very much.

Now you will need a new address. So call the office whenever you're ready for a new address.

Is there anything you'd like to ask or...

How's everybody doing on the board? Do you wanna break or you wanna keep going? Okay, next item tonight is document number 26-SC-08. This is a request for a site plan amendment to a current tourist home special exception. All is in your court, Daniel, Kayla. Clearly I need to rewire my brain tonight. I think I just want to switch your name tags there. Maybe you need a rest.

Are they wrong?

It is a full moon tonight.

That's what Daniel said earlier, or Kayla said earlier. Okay. This is staff report for Stutzman Tourist Home. Special exception amendment. Docket number 26-SE-08 Hearing date, July 29th, 2026. Petitioners and property owners, Erkin and Wanda Stetson, request as amendment to the original tourist home special exception site plan, which was 07SE07, to allow a two-acre portion of the property to be sold. Ordinance provisions, Brown County Area Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2022-01, Tourist Home Special Exception Guidelines and Conditions, and Chapter 1, Section 2, and Chapter 3, Sections 1 and 4 in the Brown County Zoning Ordinance. Location. The property is located at 704 Three Story Hill Road, Morgantown, in Jackson Township. The property is on the north side of Three Story Hill Road and is approximately 120 feet east of the intersection with LaSalle Drive. Zoning and current land use. The property is zoned secondary residential, R2, with special exception approval for a tourist home. General findings. One, during a meeting held on April 25th, 2007, under docket number 07-SE-07, the property was approved to allow the home to be rented on a short-term basis. Two, the tourist home is located on 49-acre parcel, but the special exception also includes an adjacent 5-acre parcel. The 5-acre parcel does not have any buildings on it. 3. The petitioners are requesting to amend the site plan to allow for a 2-acre portion of the southwest corner of the 49-acre parcel to be split off and sold to a neighbor. 4. The proposed site plan change should have no impact on the operation of the tourist home. Five, the following conditions from the original approval should remain in effect. One, all tourist home conditions are met. Two, water should be provided by Brown County Water Company. Three, the tourist home should be managed by a reputable property management company. Four, target shooting is not to be allowed. Five, must display a placard stating Lake LaSalle is not to be used by tenants. Findings of fact. Section 3.1 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance authorizes a special exception for this use in the designated district. Findings, tourist homes are allowed in R2 zoning districts with special exception approval. Two, the requirements for special exceptions prescribed by this ordinance will be met. Findings, the special exception requirements in the ordinance will be met as long as the conditions in the 2007 approval remain met. The board may grant a special exception for a use in a district if, after a hearing under Section 7.2, it finds that 1. Section 3.1 authorizes a special exception for that use in that district. 2. The requirements for special exceptions prescribed by this ordinance will be met. Three, granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Brown County Zoning Ordinance and will not materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. Staff recommendation, since the special exception exists and there will be no change to the number of guests or any change to the operation of the tourist home, staff recommends approval of a site plan amendment to allow the two acre portion to be divided off from the 49 acre parcel. And the pictures are not great. There was someone there. I don't know if it was the owners or if it was being rented out. So I tried to be as intrusive, as un-intrusive as possible. There's the circular driveway. Looking west on Three Story Hill Road from the driveway. Looking east. And then this is the driveway going up to the Turbostone from Three Story Hill. This small red area here. That's two acres. Approximately. Again, not a surveyor. This is the best I could do. So that's the approximate transfer area. And then this is the area that it's being transferred to. So this is the neighbor that runs on Three Story Hill Road. So they will be adding to his five acres. Gotcha. All right. That is the end of the staff report.

So regarding general findings number two, is that true that a previous board granted a special exception that involved two parcels, not one?

Yes.

That's weird. Okay.

And the findings sounded very 2007 as well.

Okay. They were very loose back then.

The five acre parcel is, Rick, can you see it up there on the, no?

Well, I'm looking at what looks like a map drawn maybe by the Stutsmans, I'm not sure, since it involves so much Stutsman property.

So this here is the five acres that's also included in the special exception? Yes, right.

So this is fun. So what I'm trying to figure out is, so you get two parcels that both have special exceptions. One of them has an operating tourist home. They want to break off a couple acres from that big one with the operating tourist home and add it to this five acre one. So we'll end up with a seven or seven and a half acre parcel that also has a special exception for a tourist home. No, no, no.

So they're wanting to sell to the neighbor to the south? Uh-huh. So the neighbor that fronts right under the 2.16, that is a different property owner. It's just a neighbor up there that has five acres. So they're just wanting to transfer two acres to that neighbor. So they will not retain ownership of the two.

Okay, so the neighbor that wants to buy, he does or does not have a special exception? Does not. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

All right.

And that's why it has to come before us.

because the 49 acres does.

Well, I'm as clear as I can possibly be now. Any other questions for Kay?

Cards. 17 were returned of the 26. You sent out 26 cards? Is that a record? In the county, it's pretty close because it's such a large parcel. Yeah, yeah, I take it. Wow.

Is that a subdivision down below it? That's Lake LaSalle. Oh, wow.

Okay. It's very unfortunate.

That's Lake LaSalle? Yeah. Well, there's my house. Okay. Didn't know Lee drank that, did I? All right. Go ahead, Randy. Lee. The letters that are sent out, how do we define who's included in that? Obviously, it's distance, I assume, but is it up to a quarter mile, half mile? It's within 600 feet. 600 feet? Of the property lines.

So it's the bigger parcel that you have, the more you send to.

Yeah. Well, I can see in this case why that many went out then.

And the GIS does it for us, so we just put the parameters in, and then it does the entire parcel, kind of highlights it, and shows where. So there were people on Old Haggard Road, I don't know how familiar you guys are with the area, a lot of those people got notices too.

All right, any other questions for Kayla? No. No. Are you the petitioners? Yes. Is there anything that you wanted to add to Kayla's staff report? Anything you want to share with us?

We're trying to sell two acres to our neighbor. Got it. Got it. And it's costing us a fortune.

All right. Then there being nobody in the audience who might speak in favor of or against this petition, I'm going to bring it back to us on the board to decide. I have absolutely no problem with this now that I understand the situation. Neither do I. I'm the leader. All right, then I'm going to take Darla's silence as feeling the same way, and I'm going to move that we approve docket number 26-SE-08, which is a request for an amendment to a site plan for an approved tourist home, provided that the pre-existing tourist home conditions are met.

I'll second.

Whenever you're ready, Daniel.

All right, Darlene Brown? Yes. Brady Jones? Yes. Ben Gore? Yes. John Tillberger? Yes. Michael Harrison?

Yes. All right. All right, you've been approved. Next item on our agenda is docket number 26-SE-09. And the petitioners ask that we table this petition until our next scheduled meeting, which is on August 26th. I personally don't mind tabling it.

I move that we approve their request.

I'll second that. Roll call vote to table this until our next meeting, Danielle. All right.

John Gelberger?

Yes.

Michael Harrison? Yes. Darla Brown? Yes. Randy Jones? Yes. Jane McGuire? Yes.

All right. We have at least one item on our next month's agenda then.

And that may or may not actually come to fruition for next month. I see. So the state now requires septic systems to go through the change of use process. So we finally have a contact at the State Department of Health. We've been sending people to the local health department, then they're sending them to the state, then they're finally getting to the right person. We finally were able to touch base with her. She explained their process, her name's Debbie. She explained their process, I explained our process. She would like for us to not make conditions as a board. Of course, she's not telling us what to do. She doesn't have that authority. So there are a lot of things that go into their process. There's not a guarantee of approval. So she would like for the state to approve or deny first before they spend the money docketing, going through all of the things they need to do for us. Oh, okay. And I think that only makes sense. It does seem to me.

What's their process like?

Yeah, slow.

Time frame and stuff.

Months. It's going to, it will slow down the whole process a little bit, unfortunately. That's just a condition of the state. But I really think, I don't think we should even docket them until this application is complete. They've gone through the state. It's either been approved or not approved. They've had to deal with it. And if they get the approval, they can bring it back to us as part of their packet. Doing it any other way, we'd have to do it conditionally, which I think is a major mistake. Because that's going to cause some tracking nightmares, I think, for staff. And I don't think we want to go there. So it's out of our hands. We'll just have to accept it. And we'll just have to tell people that it may not be as quick as what you'd like.

Yeah. And I think the way she said it, I wish I would have printed out that email. But she said, you know, unlike some of the conditions that we put on folks to... the condition that the septic system is approved is a condition that may not ever be able to be met. So I kind of thought that that was, like, okay, that puts a new spin on it.

It could be a reverse way, too, though. You know, they may get that approved, or we don't approve it for some reason. But, Randy, let me ask you a question. When you go to them, let's say there's a new septic system. Putting in a new septic system? Yeah, if you're putting in a new septic system. Are they asking, they're just asking for approval of the plants in that context, right? Because they're not going to build anything until we give our approval.

So I do believe that it's easier, do you want to answer this? Go ahead. I think it's easier to build to their specs from scratch as opposed to taking an older system, even if it's just a couple years old. and trying to bring that up to the state specs.

But she's asking for approval of, if it's a new system, approval of the design, not the installation. I believe so. Well, proving that, again, my guess is only for commercial.

This is not for residential. The Brown County Health Department still has control over that under IEC 410. But now because the state came in and said that tourist homes now are considered commercial, they're being looked at and reviewed under a different set of criteria. And they only have one person doing the reviews. And it's going to take a while.

For the whole state?

For every commercial application in the entire state, they have one person?

For changes of use.

Oh, yeah. So, I mean, it's just going to slow the process down a bit. till they're state representing to get enough kickback from them. Complaints, that's probably not going to change for a while. But to answer your question, it's not all, it's not mind your system, it's commercial.

You know, they're still going through the same process whether we approve it or not. We'll see if it's really necessarily going to add that much time. Other than what's on the tail end for us.

Yeah, all it does is...

The total time of the state's still going to be the same.

Right. Yeah.

They'll just spend that time up front before they see us.

They won't be doing that in conjunction with going through us.

And they probably wouldn't apply until we proved it anyway, so I don't see a change in time. Well, I hope you're right.

Well, we have four that wanted to be on the docket for next month that have everything other than The septic from the state. And we've got one that's actually able to docket. That's a four.

I get it.

So I'm glad we have this conversation before, like, Monday's our docket day. Which, do you guys know what docket day means?

I do. If you want to get on the docket for the next meeting.

Yes. So they come in, they pay their filing fee, they send out their legal notices, and they post it in the Democrat. So that day is scheduled because it meets the 10-day requirement and the Democrat requirement. So for them to come in and pay us, it seems kind of silly considering we can only table twice. And then they have to come back before

with the whole new submission? Well, this isn't going to just impact Brown County. This is statewide. It's Indiana code. I really believe it's going to have some real ramifications. Yeah, I think so too. I think in a year or two now, it may either go away or it may be radically changed. But we'll see. I mean, right now we have to live with what we got. So every county planning commission is basically dealing with the same thing. How they want to deal with it in terms of the timeliness of reviews and docketing and that type of stuff is up to each one of them. But personally, I don't think we ought to. I don't consider it a complete package for us to look at. I don't think we should docket it.

So everything else is grandfathered in. Everything else has been approved prior to now. That's how I understand it. The septics are grandfathered in, which all the thousands of service rentals we have now are.

Yes.

Close to a thousand. Okay, so if someone comes before us and they want to do a tourist home and they have an older septic system, do they still have to go through the state approval or are they grandfathered in?

Yes.

So it's a new petition, old septic.

Yeah.

New process.

Yes, there's no grandfathering.

Okay.

Yeah, ones that are already approved. Like I said, it can change, but I think that's how the county health department here has reviewed it as well. So they just kind of have a hands-off attitude about it. You turn some, you go to the city.

So this number six on here, it's likely that they'll have to start the process again because they can only be tabled twice, and they're probably not going to be ready next month.

So this is tabling one month, so they could again request a table to September. And as long as we hear their docket by September, they wouldn't have to docket again.

Okay. We need to have a conversation with the Planning Commission as well. We discussed that last planning thing, didn't we? Mm-hmm. Okay.

So despite Debbie's request, we could go ahead and put them on the docket next month or in September and approve it conditionally as we always have. But going forward after that, we could not docket until I get it.

Yeah, okay.

All right. Dave, you have any updates for us on anything? I do not. Good. I'm glad it's quiet. I would move that we adjourn this meeting of the PBCA. Second. Great. Danielle, roll call vote to adjourn.

Okay. Michael Harrison.

Yes.

Darla Brown. Yes. Randy Jones. Yes. Wayne Gore. Yes.