ABZA vote on Cedar Hollow shed ends inconclusive; case continued to Aug. 27

The Tippecanoe County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on July 23 failed to reach a conclusive decision on a request to place a tool shed in the front yard at 200 Cedar Hollow Court in West Lafayette; the item was continued to the board’s August meeting.

The petition by owner Paul Littrell sought to reduce the front (south) setback from the required 25 feet to 10 feet for a new shed. APC staff recommended denial, saying the property can be used without the shed and staff could not identify a hardship. The board’s vote was split 3–2; because four votes are required for a decision, the item will be reheard Aug. 27, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

Nathan McBurnett, APC staff, described the site and the reason for staff’s position: the proposed tool shed would sit near a steep ravine and within a drainage easement. McBurnett said the ravine drops about 20 feet over a roughly 20-foot lateral distance and that, while a building permit could be issued if the petitioner accepts the risk and the city has no objection, staff nonetheless identified no legal hardship that would justify the requested variance and therefore recommended denial.

Petitioner Paul Littrell (the owner at 200 Cedar Hollow Court) said he has spent recent years repairing and maintaining the property and needs outdoor storage for materials and tools. He told the board the only practical place for the shed is the proposed front‑yard site because access into the backyard is limited; he said the shed itself would be 10 by 16 feet (about 160 square feet) on a gravel/compacted pad of about 14 by 20 feet.

Neighbors spoke both for and against the request. David Glassbach and Brent Bell described improvements the petitioner had made to the property and said they supported the shed. Several long‑time neighbors opposed the variance, citing the neighborhood’s original setback pattern and aesthetics. Dave McInnis, who said he and his wife were the first buyers on the street, argued that allowing a front‑yard shed “would encourage others to do the same, leading to the deterioration of the beauty of the street,” and said it could affect property values.

Board members asked whether the structure could be used as habitable space; staff said accessory dwelling units are not permitted under city rules and a shed could only be used for storage. With the split vote the board could not reach a decision and carried the item forward; the chair said the board will rehear it on Aug. 27 at 6 p.m. and try to have a fuller membership present.