Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance 3 Unit Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michigan City BZA approves variance to add third apartment at Elston Grove property
Summary
The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a use variance May 13 to allow conversion of a basement into a third dwelling at 407 East Eighth Street in the Elston Grove historic district, subject to parking and driveway conditions and adoption of staff findings. The vote was 3–1 with one member absent.
Michigan City — The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals on May 13 approved a use variance allowing the conversion of a basement into a third dwelling unit at 407 East Eighth Street in the Elston Grove historic district, adopting planning department conditions that limit the building to three total units, require conversion of the existing single‑lane driveway to a two‑lane driveway, and require compliance with the parking standards in Section 18.02 of the zoning code. The motion passed 3–1 with one member absent; Deborah Vance made the motion and Kathy Stransky seconded it.
The petitioner, represented by attorney Brad Adamski, and property owner Mark Marshitz of Forest Avenue Properties LLC d/b/a MGM Homes LLC told the board they need a third unit so the project will qualify for financing that makes the rehabilitation feasible. "Make the world a better place one house at a time," Marshitz said, describing his approach to gut‑and‑rebuild renovations and the need to rely on rental income to satisfy lenders.
Planning Director Dr. Dominic Edwards presented the department report recommending approval with conditions, saying the proposed use aligns with surrounding uses and will not, in the department's view, "negatively affect the value or use of the neighboring properties." City counsel (Mister Hale) reminded the board that its consideration must follow the standards listed in Section 28.11(a) of the zoning ordinance and that the board may grant, partially grant, grant with conditions, deny, or table the request under Section 28.05(b). Counsel also noted a court remand returned the matter to the board for a new hearing after the applicant appealed the board's prior decision.
Board discussion focused on parking, driveway design and scope of the board's authority. Board members and the petitioner said the applicant proposes a long, two‑lane, tandem driveway able to accommodate the six spaces described in the submission; the petitioner said the long tandem driveway would allow up to six cars parked end‑to‑end. Brian Gross asked whether the petitioner had obtained a construction design release required for a Class 1 structure; board members clarified that building code and state construction approvals are handled by building inspection and are not decisions for the zoning board.
Public comment included support and opposition. Scott Mellon of 200 Kenwood Place backed the variance and criticized the December denial as erroneous, saying the work will return a derelict building to productive use. "I found that denial was a really bad decision," Mellon said, adding the property will provide relatively affordable rental housing and praising the petitioner's historic‑preservation efforts. Neighbor Janet Toyra Smith, who lives at 408 East Eighth Street across from the site, opposed the variance on traffic and service concerns, citing heavy truck and school‑time congestion on Eighth Street and noting an ordinance requirement that buildings with three or more apartments arrange private dumpster pickup. She said the driveway does not connect to an alley and that turning and maneuvering delivery or service vehicles in and out would be difficult and potentially hazardous.
After brief additional discussion, Vance moved to approve the petition with the planning department's recommended conditions and to adopt the staff findings; Stransky seconded. The roll call was: Brian Gross, no; Ricky Jackson, yes; Fred Clender (absent); Kathy Stransky, yes; Deborah Vance, yes. The motion passed.
The approval is limited to conversion of the lower level into one additional dwelling (no more than three total units), conversion of the single‑lane driveway to two lanes, and adherence to the parking standards in Section 18.02. The board record includes the planning report, the petitioner's submission, the court remand order, counsel's report, and the public comments made at the hearing. The petitioner must complete any required building‑code approvals and inspections with the building inspection and planning departments before the change of use can take effect; the board did not set a separate implementation timeline in the hearing.
