Two lawsuits have recently been filed against the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals asking for legal review of recent decisions regarding special exceptions for a wedding barn and tourist home.
In October, Michael and Linda Voland filed a petition asking for judicial review of the BZA approving a special exception to allow a wedding barn on Bellsville Pike. They want the decision reversed.
On Nov. 24, a second lawsuit was filed against the BZA, but this time it was for a review of a denial for a special exception to allow a tourist home on Upper Salt Creek Road.
The BZA approved the special exception for the wedding barn in September after hearing the request from the property owners for a third time.
Troy and April Williams had been seeking permission from the BZA for a private recreational development since the beginning of the year. They live next door to the property on Bellsville Pike where they plan to turn an unused historic tobacco barn into a wedding barn.
The couple had first gone before the BZA in February with this request and explained their aim. Neighbors spoke up at the February meeting and at the March meeting of the BZA. Their main concerns were about the impact that the noise from the event barn could have on their comfort and peace at their properties.
The BZA denied their request in March, but the Williamses petitioned the board again with new days and hours of operations.
After nearly two hours of public comments and questions from BZA board members the special exception for a private recreational development in the 8200 block of Bellsville Pike was approved 4-1 with President John Dillberger voting against it.
Voland attended all three meetings to speak against the request. Attorney Zach Miller spoke on behalf of the couple in September.
The Volands bought the property from Linda’s mother whose family had lived on the land for over 100 years.
Miller argued having a wedding barn operating on the Williamses property on the weekend changes the residential neighborhood and the way the Volands will enjoy their home.
According to the verified petition for judicial review the Volands filed on Oct. 27, the Volands want the decision reversed because it was “approved illegally, not meeting the requirements set forth by the Brown County ordinance.”
It continues that approving the special exception “subverts the general purposes served by the zoning ordinance and materially and permanently injures the Voland’s property and other properties in the same district or in the vicinity of the Williams property.”
According to the zoning ordinance, a special exception can be granted if after a public hearing the BZA determines that granting the exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the ordinances and does not “materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vincinity.”
The Voland petition continues that the special exception materially injures their use of their property “in the manner they like to enjoy it,” citing concerns around increased traffic, amplified music and drivers traveling to and from the site who may be intoxicated.
During their presentation at the Sept. 29 meeting the Williamses spoke about traffic concerns and said the additional 50 or less cars from the weddings would come in at the same time then leave later in the day when traffic is not as busy on Bellsville Pike.
April Williams said in September the venue would only host upscale weddings and would not be a “party barn.” The couple also noted that the area is 10 miles or less from other public destinations, like Stone Head Pizzeria and Bar or eXplore Brown County.
The Volands argue in their petition that the special exception will also make the south east corner of their property where they have an uninhabited home “useless” because it is within 200 feet of the wedding barn. The couple had planned to restore the house there and sub-divide that portion of the property off to family.
It also states their property value will decrease in terms of being marketable due to having the wedding barn in their neighborhood.
The Volands also argue they did not know the Williamses were re-applying for the special exception after being denied in March of this year. They state they did not have enough time to prepare a defense after receiving notice on Sept. 9 the special exception would be discussed at the Sept. 29 meeting.
At the Sept. 29 meeting, the Williamses shared results from decibel tests they had done to gauge the volume level of music coming from the barn with doors open and closed. Those tests showed the sound continued to decrease farther away from the barn with the doors open and music playing.
The Volands state that this report was not provided to them ahead of time after requesting to receive all materials ahead of the meeting and that they would have done their own testing to counter the findings the Williamses presented.
At the meeting, resident Dave Redding spoke in favor of the wedding barn. He is also the president of the Brown County Council, but stated in the meeting he was speaking as a resident. Redding is also a volunteer deputy with the Brown County Sheriff’s Department.
During the meeting, Redding spoke about helping with a traffic stop at the property before the Williamses owned it and that during the stop methamphetamine was found, which was the first time Redding reported seeing meth in person.
“The reason I share that with you is to give you an indication, a fact, of what kind of activity was around in that area and now you look at it, you see in pictures, there is a significant driving force, custodial set of eyes,” Redding told the BZA in September.
In their petition, the Volands state the BZA board members may have been biased by Redding’s testimony and voted in favor of the wedding barn without having “all the facts.”
The Volands further argue that the amount of entrances on the property and where the parking lot will be located also violate the zoning ordinance.
BZA member Darla Brown, who voted for the request previously, said in September she understood the concerns about the venue being in a neighborhood, but that the BZA had approved wedding venues and private recreational developments recently in neighborhoods “where the houses and the properties are even closer together than these properties are.”
The special exception was approved with multiple conditions: Music and days of operation to be limited to days and times specified; venue events will be under on-site supervision; the parking lot development will be done in accordance with the requirements for floodplains; the barn and sanitation system will meet local and state specifications for commercial use; mature trees will be planted on the north side of barn as offered by the applicant; and sound deafening equipment installed inside building.
“The decision to vote down the Williams application for special exception (in March) reflected the fact that a venue of this sort was not a proper fit for this residential neighborhood,” the petition states.
Another lawsuit
The petitioners in the tourist home lawsuit, Alan and Edna Peterson, of Carmel, went before the BZA in October to request the special exception to have a tourist home on Upper Salt Creek Road.
Peterson told the BZA that he and his family bought the home in August. They had already been renting it as a two bedroom tourist home when it was discovered they were not compliant with the zoning ordinance. Peterson said they were not aware they needed approval to operate the tourist home.
“It was not a lack of respect. We simply didn’t know,” Peterson told the BZA in October.
The plan was to rent the home through Airbnb and use that money to cover the mortgage as well as use it as a getaway for his family who live near Indianapolis.
The home is also located 961 feet away from another tourist home. The county’s zoning ordinance requires tourist rentals be located no closer than 250 feet from an existing home and 1,320 feet from another tourist home, according to a staff report prepared by the Planning and Zoning Office.
If circumstances do not allow a separation of 1,320 feet from another tourist home then the distance may be reduced if buffers like terrain and wood reduce the impact of the proposed tourist home on the other existing one.
BZA members expressed concern about how close the tourist home was to an already existing one. The request was ultimately denied 4 to 1.
In their petition for judicial review, the Petersons argue that the decision was “inconsistent with prior decisions of the board in which it has considered natural and artificial buffers to reduce the separation distance.”
They note that there is a 70 foot vertical drop and rise separating the tourist home from the other home. They continue the other tourist home cannot be seen from their Airbnb and that it is nearly 1,000 feet away, separated by woods and the steep ravine.
The petition continues that the votes against the tourist home were in “retaliation” for the couple operating the home as an Airbnb before receiving the proper approval.
When reached for comment about both lawsuits, BZA attorney David Schilling said he would not comment on either at this time.
