Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves reduced side-yard setback for County Road 17 self-storage project
Summary
The board approved a developmental variance reducing required side-yard setbacks in M-1 limited manufacturing district for a phased mini-storage development at 123 County Road 17, with the petitioner amending the request from a 25-foot to a 5-foot variance and staff removing an easement condition.
The Elkhart Board of Zoning Appeals approved application 24 BZA 05 on March 14, 2024, allowing a reduced side-yard setback for a phased self-storage project at 123 County Road 17.
Petitioner and request: The petitioner, represented by Stephanie Floyd, asked for relief from M-1 yard requirements to allow reduced side-yard setbacks adjacent to an AEP property. The original request sought a 0-foot setback (a 25-foot variance where 25 feet is required); the petitioner reduced that to a 5-foot setback (a 20-foot variance) during prehearing discussions.
Staff report and conditions: Staff described the site as an irregularly shaped former Banks Lumber parcel that limits building placement. Planned Phase 2 would add four buildings; staff initially recommended conditioning approval on obtaining an easement from AEP to access the adjacent property but removed that requirement after the petitioner amended the request to a 5-foot setback. Staff recommended approval, noting the proposed layout and the long-standing access/use patterns adjacent to the AEP property.
Board action and vote: A motion to approve 24 BZA 05 "and adopt the petitioner's documents and presentation together with the staff's finding of facts" passed on roll call. Recorded votes included Yes from board members present; the motion carried and the variance was granted.
Clarifying details and next steps: Staff noted that Phase 1 is largely complete and Phase 2 will proceed subject to building codes and permits. The petitioner said AEP had not responded to an earlier easement inquiry but that the reduced variance made the easement unnecessary for their development plan. The staff removed the easement condition from the recommendation. The development must meet building codes and submit required technical-review plans for permit approval.
Ending: With the approval the petitioner may proceed with Phase 2 at the reduced setback; staff and the petitioner should coordinate technical review and necessary permits before construction begins.
