I have been a critic of government overreach for a number of years, but I was shocked to see that government overreach can be found in our own county.
Terry and Deborah Kreft of Claypool are the subject of harassment from the County Board of Zoning Appeals because of a small cabin on their property. The county is saying that it is a dwelling, but I have a few questions for whoever made this accusation.
First, how could anyone tell that there was enough space for a person to spend any time in? Second, how did the board know that there was usable furniture in the cabin? Lastly, what caused the need for this investigation to begin with in the first place?
If anyone were to drive past the property from the road, no person would believe that it is a cabin that anyone could spend lengthy period of time in, if at all. From a distance, it looks like a storage shed that people put things in.
The county is claiming that the “cabin” is in violation of county ordinance. Well, ordinance 3.3 says that mobile homes and recreational vehicles must comply with all federal, state and county laws applicable to dwellings. However, if you check the Indiana Code, there is a definition of dwelling in regard to criminal law, a definition of dwelling in regard to local government, a definition of dwelling in terms of the environment, a definition of dwelling in terms of labor and safety, a definition of dwelling in terms of trade regulation, and a definition of dwelling in terms of taxation. Which definition does the county want to use? Or are they using whatever definition suits them best, because what the code might consider a dwelling in one section is not a dwelling in another.
If the BZA was really serious about making this an issue, how about they go through every property in the county and check every shed, and see how many of them are even remotely as set up as the Krefts’ cabin. How many sheds, man caves, she sheds, etc., would the county find with electricity, appliances and other furnishings? And what about treehouses that parents build for their kids? Are we going to check those as well? I am guessing you would need more than your fingers and toes to accurately count that number.
If the state is claiming that a sink and compost toilet are a health issue, the harm is to no one outside of the household. There is no threat to local drinking water, and if they believe it’s a health issue, then the cattle in the state are a bigger health issue than two people.
Is the BZA actually serious about believing that a $12,000 shed needs a $40,000 septic tank?
I encourage everyone who is supportive of the Krefts to let the BZA know that this is government overreach and that should just leave these hard-working people alone. I hope that the BZA will do the right thing and put this issue to bed.
