Following the denial of a hardship variance for John and Caley Homrighausen, questions remain about the future of their home and the neighboring farm property.

As previously reported, the couple’s home on H Road near the end of its construction last year was found to be 16 feet away from the property line, violating a required setback of 20 feet.

With this violation, Monroe County officials did not issue a final inspection or occupancy permit for the house, prompting the Homrighausens to request a variance last year.

After that variance was denied by the Monroe County Zoning Board of Appeals, the couple agreed to work with neighboring property owner Josh Biffar in an attempt to address the situation without official action by the county.

Biffar, who farms the land to the south of the Homrighausen property, expressed his disapproval of the potential variance last year. His chief concern then seemed to be liability for overspray of crop chemicals which could affect the couple’s home.

The more recent pursuit of a variance by the Homrighausens was centered around a hardship variance as the couple said denial of an occupancy permit has created an undue difficulty on the family.

The Monroe County Planning Commission on Aug. 7 voted 7-5 against recommending that the Monroe County Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request.

The zoning board met Aug. 25 to discuss the request and hear more from the Homrighausens and Biffar, with three board members voting in favor of granting the variance and two voting against.

Since the planning commission had recommended against approving the request, a three-fourths majority vote was required to grant the variance – meaning at least four of the  five board members would have had to approve.

Members of the zoning board are appointed by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners. Most are individuals who previously served on the planning commission.

Discussion at the Aug. 25 zoning board meeting was varied, though focus was placed on the apparent negotiations between the Homrighausens and Biffar over the past few months.

Among the final offers made by the Homrighausens was $10,000 for 700 square feet of Biffar’s property. The purchase was for 10 feet into his property and 70 feet across – seemingly meant to shift the property line simply to bring the Homrighausens’ home behind the 20-foot setback.

This figure of $10,000 came from the proposed price of $625,000 per acre.

Also part of the offer was a 99-year lease agreement that seemingly would have allowed Biffar to continue farming that land. Liability paperwork to address Biffar’s original concerns about overspray also seems to have been included in that offer.

Biffar’s apparent final counter-offer agreed to the price of $625,000 per acre but for a strip along the length of the property line which extends just under 1,320 feet. His offer also requested surveying expenses and installation of a basin due to erosion issues caused by the house seemingly being too close to the property line.

While an agreement between the Homrighausens and Biffar seemed to be at a standstill, a few other potential solutions for the Homrighausens’ situation were discussed at the zoning board meeting.

Regarding the house itself, the possibility of moving the structure or cutting off a portion of the house to bring it four feet further from the property line were entertained, though the tremendous cost of both would seem to make either less than ideal.

It was noted following denial of the variance that the couple could appeal the matter again, at which point their request would enter Monroe County Circuit Court, with a judge evaluating much the same matters as the board including apparent hardship, cost among both parties and the precedent this variance’s approval would set in the county.

Upon being contacted for comment on the future of their property, the Homrighausens responded, “We are currently evaluating our options, but are not in a position to comment further at this time.”

Biffar spoke with the Republic-Times to offer more of his side of the situation.

He noted that, in conversations about this issue, more emphasis ought to be placed on who did the construction as certain specialists are contacted for different aspects of the project.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation, a lot of assumptions that have been made on social media on where the blame lies, where the fault lies,” Biffar said. “I think what needs to be examined closer is whose name is on the permit.”

It was previously reported that Biffar and the county brought up the setback matter around the same time, seemingly well into the construction process.

Biffar reiterated his point that those overseeing the building’s construction should have been more aware of the property line and the setback. He also noted the original survey stake was near the house.

“I don’t feel that I should be the one responsible to ensure that the lines are correct, where the property line is and all that,” Biffar said.

He further emphasized his point, saying this issue is akin to any other mistake made in construction.

“I would feel that that individual, at the end of the day, is where the responsibility lies just the same as if the roof leaked or if the electrical failed inspection,” Biffar said. “It would be that contractor’s name who is on the permit and who is responsible for it.”

Speaking more on the construction process, Biffar recalled that contractors during construction had put dirt and equipment on his property without permission.

He ultimately stressed his desire to maintain a clean property line rather than have his field take on an awkward shape.

“I didn’t want my field to end up being C-shaped, and they didn’t wanna buy a straight line,” Biffar said. “Both issues are respectable, I feel, and we just couldn’t agree. It’s not really up to me to have to offer a solution to this issue… I wasn’t going to allow my field to be impacted for the rest of my ownership. Property only comes up for sale once in a lifetime, and I had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy this piece of property just a few months before the Homrighausens purchased theirs, so I’d like to keep what I purchased.”

Biffar also argued that the county is not to blame for the situation, adding it has been generous in allowing the Homrighausens to occupy their home without an occupancy permit.