Use variance wording, not A1 standards, changing in county

When it came time to act on a long-discussed change to the Putnam County zoning ordinance, it turned out words mattered more than numbers.

With a chance before them recently to change the development standards in the Agriculture 1 district, the Putnam County Plan Commission chose to leave the guideline as five acres and 350 feet of road frontage.

Instead, the commission went another route, changing the use variance wording to allow for more lenience from the Putnam County Board of Zoning Appeals.

Since late last spring, the commission has considered reducing the minimum lot requirement in A1, considered the “ag protection” district, to three acres and 200 feet of frontage.

However, as the discussions really ramped up in recent months, members discovered that not only was there some vocal opposition to the change, but that a reduction in acreage and frontage would not solve the problems of balancing future development with preserving the agricultural heritage of the county.

County Attorney Jim Ensley opened the meeting by presenting the use variance language previously used in Putnam County and then presenting other examples from Hendricks County, from Greencastle, Bainbridge and Roachdale, the State of Indiana standard and even unapproved Putnam County changes from a decade ago.

The most obvious difference was in the final stipulation of the use variance findings of fact, “The strict applications of the terms of the zoning regulations would result in an unnecessary hardship in the use of the property” (emphasis added).

In every other example presented, “unnecessary hardship” was replaced with “practical difficulty.”

“If you guys changed that, would it result in more lenience, in terms of development standards and the BZA?” Ensley asked. “There’s been this assertion that these come before (the BZA) and it’s black and white. If that’s the case, then why does it exist? (County Planner) Don (Hatfield) can do that down at his office.”

The BZA members present seemed to think it would make a difference.

“I think a determination like that would be better than a flat acreage and flat road frontage,” said Randy Bee, who serves on both the Plan Commission and BZA.

BZA president Lora Scott agreed.

“In my mind, I think ‘practical difficulties’ has a different tone than ‘hardship,’” Scott said from the audience. “That kind of implies something financial.”

Kevin Scobee, who like Bee serves on both boards, seemed to agree but also expressed misgivings at the change.

“If one petitioner has a request and that would be denied, then the next one comes in and is approved,” Scobee said.

While Ensley allowed that this could happen, it comes with the territory.

“As the BZA, you’re a quasi-judicial board,” Ensley said.

And no matter the numbers used, Scott said there are always examples of properties that probably deserved consideration as variances.

“I’ve been the one to hold the line with what the ordinance says,” Scott said. “But then you go home and think, it’s just not doing what we want it to do.”

In addition to approving the word change to make the ordinance more open-ended, the commission also approved wording that allows the BZA to place restrictions upon any allowed variance, the same as is already in place for special exceptions.

With the 7-0 approval of commission members Bee, Scobee, Wendell Underwood, Jill Bridgewater, David Penturf, Eric Hayman and Ken Heeke (David Berry and Jenna Nees were absent), the matter moves to the Putnam County Commissioners, who will consider it on Monday, June 3 during their 9 a.m. meeting.