Board denies variance for 40-acre parcel split; applicant told moving the line 65 feet would avoid hearing

The Marshall County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 12 denied a variance request (Case 26BZA13) from Jerry Bontrager seeking to split a roughly 40-acre parcel into a narrow 10-acre and a remaining 29–30-acre parcel that does not meet the county's 3:1 width-to-depth ratio.

Staff described the parcel as about 360 feet wide and 1,275 feet deep, noted the site contains interior woodland used to locate the split line, and recommended approval based on findings that the split would not harm public health, safety or welfare. Staff also reminded the board that a parent 40-acre parcel is eligible for up to two splits under county rules.

Bontrager told the board he preferred the proposed line to preserve the woods and said his brother intends to buy the adjacent portion and place a home there. "We just didn't wanna split the woods is what we're after," Bontrager said.

Neighbors raised objections. Bill Heidey, who owns surrounding parcels on Plymouth Ocean Trail, asked whether approval would create an easement across his land; staff clarified that zoning approval does not create an automatic easement and existing verbal agreements between neighbors are separate private matters. Resident Marvin Nguyen opposed the variance, arguing the land was purchased as farmland and warned repeated variances erode agricultural acreage and create precedents for future splits.

During discussion, board members suggested the applicant could shift the split 65 feet to reach the 425-foot frontage that would meet the county's 3:1 standard and avoid a variance. Bontrager said a down payment had been made on the transaction but survey work was paused after discovering the ratio shortfall; he said he could have his brother move the line if necessary.

A motion to deny the variance was made and seconded; on roll call the board recorded four votes in favor of denial and one opposing vote (Bennett), and the petition was denied. The board recorded that if the applicant instead adjusts the split to provide 425 feet of frontage the matter would not require a variance and the applicant could proceed.

The denial preserves the county's application of the 3:1 frontage-to-depth ratio in this case; staff also noted the parcel remains eligible for allowed splits consistent with county rules if the applicant chooses to reconfigure the line to meet the frontage requirement.