Carmel BZA approves accessory dwelling unit variance at 10680 Highland Drive

The Board of Zoning Appeals on June 23 approved a use-variance request to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a 3-acre lot at 10680 Highland Drive, docket PZ202500092UV. The petitioner, Molly Smith, spoke on behalf of property owners Kaye and Douglas Thompson.

The approval matters to neighbors and the owners because the unit will let a family member live close to aging parents on the property; planning staff recommended approval with conditions requiring the petitioner to address remaining technical-review comments and engineering requirements for driveway crossing and drainage.

Molly Smith, the petitioner, told the board she filed the request to be near her aging parents and to protect long-standing trees and wildlife on the parcel. She said the plan avoids large trees and that she is working with engineers on a culvert and a water-retention scheme to avoid changing creek flow. "The proposal is rooted in love, legacy, and responsibility," Smith said. She also said the structure would meet the ADU height limits: "the tallest side of the building still is within the 18 feet regulations of an ADU for a property of this size." Smith characterized the building as a private home and garage/storage for cars, not a commercial operation.

A neighbor who lives directly west of the property, Carolina Stewart, did not oppose the request but asked the board to consider locating the building farther from her home; she asked that the petitioner consider a setback greater than the roughly 75 feet separation shown in site materials. Smith replied that the applicable setback rules allow buildings closer to the property line (she noted a five-foot minimum in neighborhood rules) and that final siting would depend on floodplain, grading and drainage engineering required as part of the review.

Planning staff, Department of Community Services, told the board the site is not in a subdivision and there is no homeowners association, that the petitioner has worked with staff to meet standards for building height and setbacks, and that staff supports the use-variance request provided remaining technical-review comments and engineering department requirements (driveway crossing, grading and drainage) are resolved as conditions of approval.

After brief board discussion and a motion to approve conditioned on addressing technical-review comments and adoption of findings of fact, the board voted to approve the variance. The approval is conditional: the petitioner must satisfy outstanding engineering and technical-review requirements before final permits and inspections proceed.

Next steps: the petitioner must complete engineering plans for the driveway crossing and water-retention measures and satisfy any remaining technical comments listed by planning and engineering staff. The BZA approval authorizes the use variance but does not remove the need for required building permits, engineered culvert/drainage plans, or any other agency approvals that apply to construction near a creek.