The Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a development standards variance that reduces the 20-foot side-yard setback to 9 feet 10 inches for a canopy on the south side of a building at 10701 Deandre Drive B.

Staff recommended denial, saying strict application of the zoning ordinance would not create an unnecessary hardship because the land already yields a reasonable return and the petitioner’s justification was primarily financial. "In this case, staff believes the land already yields a reasonable return," the staff member said, and staff concluded the hardship argument was self-created.

The property owner and designer said the request is part of a broader renovation of an existing building and that the canopy is intended to protect doors and windows from weather and improve the building’s appearance. The owner said the canopy would not encroach on neighboring property and that the area immediately to the south is a common retention pond area unlikely to be developed. "That building was built 27 years ago ... the pond has to be there. It can never be removed for runoff," the owner said, describing the situation to the board.

Board members discussed the three variance criteria. Staff agreed the project would not be injurious to public health or safety because the structure will be reviewed through existing technical advisory and building code processes; staff also agreed the proposed canopy would not adversely affect adjacent property use because the adjacent parcel is a retention pond. However, staff opposed the variance on the third criterion, arguing the petitioner had not shown a unique, non-self-created hardship. Several board members, after site photos and testimony, disagreed with staff’s legal conclusion and said the specific site circumstances and that the southern adjacent land is undevelopable made allowance reasonable.

One board member moved to approve the variance, subject to the condition that the variance applies only to the south canopy shown in the submitted drawings; another board member seconded. On roll call the board recorded affirmative votes for the motion and approved the variance. The motion and approval included the staff report, submitted site plans, and evidence presented during the hearing. The board’s approval explicitly limited the variance to the canopy as presented; it did not authorize other encroachments or changes closer to the property line.

The petitioner was instructed that building, fire-code and plan-review approvals remain required and that the canopy must substantially conform to the plans presented in the hearing.