Vigo County Board of Zoning AppealsAug 12, 2026

Highlights

• Property

  Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

  Outcome: Approved on a voice vote, conditioned on a demolition permit and an improvement location permit

  0:00:00 — open the recording, cued to 0 seconds
• Unverified item. Flagged · Unverified

  County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

  Outcome: Approved on a voice vote.

  0:02:11 — open the recording, cued to 2 minutes 11 seconds

Transcript

Open the transcript on its own page

Meeting

Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals · Aug 12, 2026

Length

0:06:05

Lines

31

Transcribed by

mlx-community/whisper-large-v3-turbo

1. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

   0:00:00 — open the recording at 0 secondsSpeaker 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,

2. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

   0:00:32 — open the recording at 32 secondsSpeaker 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.

3. 0:01:03 — open the recording at 1 minute 3 secondsSpeaker 5 (chair): Is the petitioner present?

4. 0:01:06 — open the recording at 1 minute 6 secondsSpeaker 6: Yes, sir.

5. 0:01:06 — open the recording at 1 minute 6 secondsSpeaker 5 (chair): You have anything you'd like to add?

6. 0:01:08 — open the recording at 1 minute 8 secondsSpeaker 6: No, sir.

7. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

   0:01:11 — open the recording at 1 minute 11 secondsSpeaker 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?

8. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

   0:01:25 — open the recording at 1 minute 25 secondsSpeaker 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.

9. 0:01:32 — open the recording at 1 minute 32 secondsSpeaker 13 (board member): Okay. Okay. Any questions?

10. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

    0:01:35 — open the recording at 1 minute 35 secondsSpeaker 7: We did receive the neighbor. She was against it and a neighbor that was for the petition.

11. 0:01:45 — open the recording at 1 minute 45 secondsSpeaker 16: Did you guys see that? Yeah, that's our two handouts.

12. 0:01:55 — open the recording at 1 minute 55 secondsSpeaker 18: Do the commission have any questions?

13. 0:01:58 — open the recording at 1 minute 58 secondsSpeaker 20: I don't have any.

14. Highlight · drawn from this moment: Zoning board approves a garage variance next to a vacant lot, over one neighbor's written objection

    0:02:00 — open the recording at 2 minutesSpeaker 22: Well, I'll open for a motion.

15. 0:02:02 — open the recording at 2 minutes 2 secondsSpeaker 21: Motion to approve.

16. 0:02:04 — open the recording at 2 minutes 4 secondsSpeaker 23: Second. All those in favor aye. Aye. Aye.

17. 0:02:07 — open the recording at 2 minutes 7 secondsSpeaker 25 (chair): Approved. Motion approved.

18. Highlight · drawn from this moment: County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

    0:02:11 — open the recording at 2 minutes 11 secondsSpeaker 27 (chair): Okay. Chamberlain 78 783 North Chamberlain Street, Tarho.

19. Highlight · drawn from this moment: County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

    0:02:17 — open the recording at 2 minutes 17 secondsSpeaker 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

20. Highlight · drawn from this moment: County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

    0:02:56 — open the recording at 2 minutes 56 secondsSpeaker 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

21. 0:03:29 — open the recording at 3 minutes 29 secondsSpeaker 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.

22. 0:04:02 — open the recording at 4 minutes 2 secondsSpeaker 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.

23. 0:04:37 — open the recording at 4 minutes 37 secondsSpeaker 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.

24. 0:05:06 — open the recording at 5 minutes 6 secondsSpeaker 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?

25. Highlight · drawn from this moment: County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

    0:05:26 — open the recording at 5 minutes 26 secondsSpeaker 35: Motion for approval.

26. Highlight · drawn from this moment: County zoning board lets Chamberlain Street pole barn remain after lot split

    0:05:28 — open the recording at 5 minutes 28 secondsSpeaker 36 (board member): Second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Motion approved.

27. 0:05:37 — open the recording at 5 minutes 37 secondsSpeaker 41 (board member): Okay. I would move that we accept the findings and facts from our previous meeting. Okay. Second.

28. 0:05:44 — open the recording at 5 minutes 44 secondsSpeaker 25 (chair): All those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Motion approved. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor, aye. Aye. We're done.

29. 0:05:57 — open the recording at 5 minutes 57 seconds Aye.

30. 0:05:59 — open the recording at 5 minutes 59 secondsSpeaker 47: You can record your son now. Thank you.

31. 0:06:03 — open the recording at 6 minutes 3 secondsSpeaker 50: That's interesting.

Marked moments above are where the archive's reviewed highlights were drawn from. Everything else on this page is unreviewed.