The Vigo Ledger

Transcript — Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals, 2026-08-12

Machine transcription of the recording of the Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on 2026-08-12, aligned to the video timeline. This is not the official record — the clerk's minutes are, and this is unreviewed automatic speech recognition that mis-hears names and numbers. Check anything that matters against the recording.

Each line is stamped with its position in the recording, both as a clock time and as [t=SECONDS]. Those are the same seconds the archive's source links use: open the recording and add &t=<seconds> to jump to any line.

Speakers were separated automatically and named from the meeting's speaker roster where the evidence supported it; an unnamed voice is shown as Speaker <n>, which is a machine label and not a person's name.

Transcript

  • 0:00:00 [t=0] Speaker 0 (staff): Special uses and accessory structures of a similar nature. While the structure would be up to the neighboring personal staff finds that the variance is not likely to have a substantially adverse impact on the neighboring properties or the overall character of the value of the surrounding area. The petitioner seeking to replace the existing detached garage with a larger structure should not cause any unnecessary hardship to the adjoining neighbor. The requested variance would only affect a small portion of the rear of the proposed garage adjacent to the parcel,
  • 0:00:32 [t=32] Speaker 0 (staff): while the remainder of the structure would meet or exceed the required five-foot setback. The staff finds that unique circumstances associated with adjoining unbuildable parcel and as longstanding separate ownership create a particular hardship and use of the property that is not solely financially in nature. Based on written findings above, the staff does offer a favorable recommendation for the variance with the condition that a demo permit and an ILP must be issued.
  • 0:01:03 [t=63] Speaker 5 (chair): Is the petitioner present?
  • 0:01:06 [t=66] Speaker 6: Yes, sir.
  • 0:01:06 [t=66] Speaker 5 (chair): You have anything you'd like to add?
  • 0:01:08 [t=68] Speaker 6: No, sir.
  • 0:01:11 [t=71] Speaker 8 (board member): Okay. I have a couple questions. How are you going to be able to put it up without trespassing on the other property if you wipe away all that property line?
  • 0:01:25 [t=85] Speaker 11: Well, I'm going to come back like a foot or two foot from that property line. I won't lay butted right up against it.
  • 0:01:32 [t=92] Speaker 13 (board member): Okay. Okay. Any questions?
  • 0:01:35 [t=95] Speaker 7: We did receive the neighbor. She was against it and a neighbor that was for the petition.
  • 0:01:45 [t=105] Speaker 16: Did you guys see that? Yeah, that's our two handouts.
  • 0:01:55 [t=115] Speaker 18: Do the commission have any questions?
  • 0:01:58 [t=118] Speaker 20: I don't have any.
  • 0:02:00 [t=120] Speaker 22: Well, I'll open for a motion.
  • 0:02:02 [t=122] Speaker 21: Motion to approve.
  • 0:02:04 [t=124] Speaker 23: Second. All those in favor aye. Aye. Aye.
  • 0:02:07 [t=127] Speaker 25 (chair): Approved. Motion approved.
  • 0:02:11 [t=131] Speaker 27 (chair): Okay. Chamberlain 78 783 North Chamberlain Street, Tarho.
  • 0:02:17 [t=137] Speaker 0 (staff): The petitioner Sam Miller, Miller Realtor Incorporated is requesting a variance of 19 feet from the 25 foot front yard set back in a single family residential suburban district as set forth in section 111E1 of the Unified Zoning Ordinance for Vigo County. The petitioner recently subdivided the subject property into two lots as part of Miller Acres subdivision. Lot one contains an existing pole barn and the petitioner has applied for an improvement location permit to construct a single family residence on that lot. A single family residence is also anticipated to be constructed on lot two at
  • 0:02:56 [t=176] Speaker 0 (staff): a future date. The existing pole barn on lot one is located adjacent to and directly behind lot too. As a result of the subdivision, the pole barn now encroaches six feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback. Approval of the variance would allow the existing pole barn to remain in its current location while facilitating the development of a newly created residential lot. The requested variance is associated with the existing pole barn that was established prior to the subdivision of the property. The variance would allow the
  • 0:03:29 [t=209] Speaker 0 (staff): Polburn to remain in its current location and would not increase the intensity of the use of the property or create a condition that would be interest to the public's health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of the community. The requested six-foot reduction to the front yard setback is minimal in nature and is not expected to adversely affect surrounding properties or public infrastructure. The requested variance would permit the existing accessory structure to remain in its current location following the subdivision of the property into two residential lots.
  • 0:04:02 [t=242] Speaker 0 (staff): Allowing the existing pole barn to remain approximately 19 feet from the property line is not likely to have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of the adjacent properties as the surrounding area is characterized by residential and accessory structures of similar scale and character. The strict application of the 20-foot front yard setback requirement would require removal, relocation or substantially altered alternation of the existing pole barn as a result of the newly established lock configuration created through the Miller Acres subdivision.
  • 0:04:37 [t=277] Speaker 0 (staff): The hardship is not primarily financial in nature but results from the placement of the existing structure relative to the newly created partial lines. Staff finds that the requested variance represents a reasonable accommodation that allows continued use of the existing structure while facilitating residential development of both subdivisions lots in a manner consistent with intent of the ordinance based on written finding above stuff does offer a favorable recommendation for the variance.
  • 0:05:06 [t=306] Speaker 5 (chair): Is the petitioner present? Anything you'd like to add? We've set it off huh? Does the commission have any questions? No. Is there anyone here in opposition to this?
  • 0:05:26 [t=326] Speaker 35: Motion for approval.
  • 0:05:28 [t=328] Speaker 36 (board member): Second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Motion approved.
  • 0:05:37 [t=337] Speaker 41 (board member): Okay. I would move that we accept the findings and facts from our previous meeting. Okay. Second.
  • 0:05:44 [t=344] Speaker 25 (chair): All those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Motion approved. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor, aye. Aye. We're done.
  • 0:05:57 [t=357] Aye.
  • 0:05:59 [t=359] Speaker 47: You can record your son now. Thank you.
  • 0:06:03 [t=363] Speaker 50: That's interesting.