This month the Marshall County Board of Zoning Appeals heard two requests to build a secondary structure on a lot before the primary structure is built. One request was approved, and one was tabled for further consideration by the property owner.
Robert Aloi of 20948 South Lake Drive on Koontz Lake was granted a variance of development standard to allow a pole-barn garage on the lot he owns across the street from his residence. Mr. Aloi said he has no plans to build a home on the property but there is enough space for a home with the pole-barn on the lot.
BZA member Michelle Mieras said the structure meets all required setbacks and member, Trent Bennet wanted to make sure the structure would be at least 45 feet out of the flood plain.
There were no comments during the public hearing and the County BZA unanimously approved the variance request as presented.
The second request was from Shawn and Valerie McLochlin at 16544 Sunset Drive in the Golf View Estates. The McLochilns requested a variance to build a 30 by 36 pole-building garage on an adjacent lot to their current home. The couple will meet setback requirements.
BZA members told the McLochlins that if they combined the two lots into one single lot they wouldn’t need a variance.
There were at least 5 objections to the variance request. Cynthia Dammon and Sally Holl are neighbors and said there are rules or covenants to not allow a storage building. They both were concerned with what it might become in the future. James Dammon sent a letter in opposition referring to the precedent it could set for future structures in the neighborhood.
There was another letter by Mr. Dammon with neighbors Richard and Janet Overmyer and Jan McKee who stated they were not in favor of the variance request due to the rules and laws of the Golf View Estates restrictions and covenants.
Neighbors Jack and Cindy Kinney also provided a letter against the proposed variance to allow a 30 by 36 pole building. They too mentioned the restrictions in the Golf View Estates and said allowing such a variance would be “opening pandora’s box of problems by allowing a homeowner to construct a building that does not comply with existing restrictions and covenants.”
After closing the public hearing, the McLochlins said there were three phases of the subdivision development and said their property does not have any covenants on it although they followed what the other property owners have followed.
After continued discussion, the McLochlins decided to consider combining the two lots into one lot and then a variance wouldn’t be necessary. They could also adjust the lot line to have the proposed building on the lot with their home, leaving enough land for a buildable lot.
The motion was made to table a decision until the McLochlins can talk to Plan Director Ty Adley for more information.
