The Vigo County Zoning Appeals board approved three rezoning petitions at a short meeting, voting to reclassify properties at 605 Otterpoint Court and two adjoining parcels to better match intended uses.

Jared, a staff presenter, said the petition for 605 Otterpoint Court would change the zoning from OS (Open Space) to R‑1 (single‑family residential) so two parcels could be combined. He told the board sanitary sewer and public water are available and that the area’s primary guidance is suburban residential; the planning commission and staff recommended approval and no remonstrators attended. Attorney Richard Shagley, representing the petitioners, called the request “a cleanup fix” to make the parcel zoning match the house so the owner could combine the lots and claim homestead benefits.

The board moved and approved the rezoning by voice vote; two commissioners said “Aye.”

The board then took up a petition for 10532 East Union Drive, where staff recommended rezoning from R‑S (single‑family suburban) to A‑1 (agricultural) to permit vacant‑land agricultural uses and 4‑H/barnyard animals. Jared said the site lacks sanitary sewer and public water, abuts a railroad, and includes an older storage barn to be used for storage. Notices were sent to adjacent owners within a half‑mile as required by section 1n of the UZO; the land commission forwarded a favorable recommendation and no remonstrators were present. The staff noted a 2021 amendment to chapter 49 of the county’s animal control ordinance permits goats, chickens, sheep and rabbits in some areas, but that A‑1 would be appropriate if larger barnyard animals are intended.

A motion to approve the East Union Drive rezoning passed by voice vote with two ‘Aye’ responses.

Finally, the board approved UZO 21, described by staff as the adjoining parcel to the East Union Drive site; staff made the same recommendation and the planning commission had forwarded approval. After a brief acknowledgment that the petitioner was present, the board voted to approve the item by voice vote.

All three items were noncontroversial during the meeting: staff and the planning/land commission recommended approval for each petition, no remonstrators were present, and the board approved each petition by voice vote. The meeting concluded with brief closing remarks.