Morgan Township's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) concluded it could not decide on an area-variance application that the board first heard Feb. 20, citing concerns that board members' actions and outside involvement tainted the process.

The board's presiding member during the meeting, Jeff (BZA member, presiding tonight), said legal staff and the prosecutor's office advised the board that individual site visits and a relationship between a board member and the applicants had "contaminated the whole process." "No variance can be rendered due to the actions of the board," Jeff said, explaining that a reapplication would be required to restore a hearing that is beyond reproach.

The Whites, the homeowners who sought the variance, told the board they had provided the documents the board requested and had gathered additional drainage information. "We've provided all of that to you. We've, you know, got information here to go above and beyond and other things we're gonna propose tonight to go above and beyond for the drainage," Mrs. White said.

Why it matters: The BZA is the local body that determines whether property owners can receive relief from zoning setbacks by showing practical hardship. Board members and the township's legal advisers said the integrity of that deliberative process must be indisputable to avoid later legal challenges in Butler County Common Pleas Court or elsewhere.

Details from the meeting: The BZA chair (Steve Grody) was en route to the meeting; Jeff presided. The board and township staff reported two problems that led legal counsel to recommend halting final action on MTBZA2025-A-2: (1) the existence of a relationship between a board member and the applicants that was not fully disclosed, and (2) at least one board member had visited and filmed the applicants' property alone following a heavy rain. The prosecutor's office and the township's ethics adviser told the BZA those facts could be grounds to overturn any decision issued after the contested deliberations.

Board members discussed options for the Whites. Dale Marshall (staff member) told the applicants they had three options under state law as explained to the board: reapply for a new BZA hearing (the application fee the board cited is $400), modify the project to comply with setback rules, or file a statutory appeal in common pleas court. Marshall told the applicants they had approximately 30 days to decide whether to reapply.

Board members also debated internal rules about site visits. Legal guidance presented at the meeting said individual board members should not visit applicant sites on their own because that practice can create the appearance of bias; any site visit material to a case should be done collectively or otherwise handled to preserve the open-meetings/sunshine-law requirements.

No final vote to void the Feb. 20 hearing was recorded. Board members acknowledged the case was "tainted" and several said they could not, in good conscience, render a decision. At least one board member said they had recused themselves earlier in the process; others expressed reluctance to vote without clearer written direction from the prosecutor's office. Jeff said the trustees and prosecutor's office would have to provide direction on how the matter proceeds.

Applicants' concerns: The Whites told the board they had followed the board's prior instructions, submitted extra information and prepared drainage improvements. They said they opposed having to pay another application fee. Jeff and staff repeatedly stressed that the recommendation to halt action was not a judgment of the applicants' conduct but a process protection to prevent a future legal challenge.

Context and next steps: The board agreed it would not decide the case at that meeting. If the Whites reapply, the matter would return to a future BZA hearing and could be heard by a different panel if membership or recusals change. Board members asked for clearer written guidance on site-visit rules, sunshine-law compliance and the Duncan-related precedent the board had received in paper packets. The board asked Dale Marshall to provide the relevant statutory guidance and to work with the chair to schedule a work session to review procedures.

Votes at a glance: The BZA approved minutes from the Feb. 20 meeting earlier in the agenda by roll call. There was no recorded vote to render MTBZA2025-A-2 decided or to affirm the prior hearing; the board did not reach a final vote on the variance and instructed the applicants on the three available options.

Ending note: Board members said they want written advisory guidance from the prosecutor's office about site visits and the conditions under which a prior hearing should be voided, and they scheduled follow-up work to clarify procedures so future applicants and volunteers know the rules that govern hearings.