Goshen meeting approves variances for 1105 South 8th Street despite neighbor stormwater concerns

At a Goshen City meeting, officials approved developmental variances for 1105 South 8th Street that will allow an approximately 420-square-foot accessory building to be sited 10 feet from the property line where 25 feet is normally required and a house addition whose overhang will sit about 7.5 feet from the south property line where 8 feet is required.

Holzinger, the staff presenter, told the body the subject property is a narrow, 45-foot-wide lot that fronts 8th Street and also abuts Cottage Avenue. "Staff recommends approval of the request," Holzinger said, noting the proposed addition aligns with existing encroachments and that accessory buildings of similar placement appear along Cottage Avenue.

Nathan Mateer Rempel, representing the petitioner, said he had no substantive additions to the staff report but was available to answer questions. Neighbor Matt Scott of 1022 South 7th Street opposed the accessory building’s proximity to Cottage Avenue, telling the panel that "as they've repaved over Cottage Avenue over the years, all the water runoff comes into our driveway" and that he had photographs showing water accumulating in his driveway and entering his garage during storms.

A builder representing the project described the accessory structure as having a mono-pitch roof that will shed water toward the rear and said guttering or a small retention area could be added. Holzinger clarified the 10-foot measurement is from the property line, not from the pavement, and noted the structure will be set back a distance from Cottage Avenue pavement.

Board members acknowledged Scott’s concerns about stormwater but characterized drainage as primarily an engineering or stormwater-department issue outside the specific setback determination. One member disclosed a personal friendship with Scott and stated that it did not constitute a legal financial conflict.

After brief discussion the panel moved to approve the variance consistent with staff recommendations; members voted in favor and the motion passed. The panel did not record an individual roll-call vote with full names in the transcript. The decision closes the public portion for this item; the record indicates staff recommended approval and the body granted the variances.