Last month one of the lawsuits filed against the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals was dismissed at the request of the petitioners.
Alan and Edna Peterson, of Carmel, filed a petition for judicial review last November after their request for a special exception to have a tourist home on Upper Salt Creek Road was denied. The couple went before the BZA in October to request the special exception.
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.
The plan was to rent the home through Airbnb as well as use it as a getaway for his family who live near Indianapolis.
The home was 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 argued 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 noted that there was a 70 foot vertical drop and rise separating the tourist home from the other home. They continued 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 continued that the votes against the tourist home were in “retaliation” for the couple operating the home as an Airbnb before receiving the proper approval.
BZA attorney David Schilling denied those allegations in his response to the petition.
Schilling filed a motion to dismiss the petition in January. In response, the Petersons filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 24.
“The petitioners no longer wish to pursue their petition for review,” according to the motion to dismiss filed by their attorney James T. Roberts.
A second lawsuit that was filed against the BZA last fall continues to move forward.
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.
At the Jan. 26 BZA meeting, Schilling told the board that he had spoken with an attorney who may soon be representing the Volands and that he was working on assembling meeting records for the court.
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.
Michael Voland attended all three meetings to speak against the request. The Volands bought the property from Linda’s mother whose family had lived on the land for over 100 years.
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.”
In the petition, the couple said that the wedding barn would affect how they enjoy their home and use their property in the future.
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 vicinity.”
After nearly two hours of public comments and questions from BZA board members the special exception for the private recreational development in the 8200 block of Bellsville Pike was approved 4-1 with President John Dillberger voting against it.
