Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board OKs lot-size and 6-foot setback variance for Rossville corner lot to allow new house
Summary
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved a full lot-size variance and a 6-foot front-yard setback variance (resulting in a 14-foot setback from the right of way) for a corner lot in Rossville owned by Kirakoff Holmes LLC, enabling construction of a new dwelling on a previously divided parcel.
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals of Clinton County on May 27 granted two variances requested by Kirakoff Holmes LLC for a corner lot in Rossville: a lot-size variance to permit an 8,790-square-foot lot where the town code requires a 10,000-square-foot minimum, and a front-yard setback variance reducing the required 20-foot setback to 14 feet from the road right of way on the north side.
Staff told the board the lot (plotted as Lot 6 in Reed's Addition) had been in common ownership with the adjacent Lot 5 for a significant period and functioned as a common yard, and that the sale and separation of ownership triggered the minimum-lot-size requirement. The petitioner proposed a house that, in the submitted site plan, would require variances to be buildable in a conventional orientation.
Town of Rossville officials had expressed concern about granting the full 12-foot setback variance the petitioner initially requested because of the lot's corner location and the ability to fit the two required off-street parking spaces without encroaching on the road or sidewalk. Staff recommended the board consider granting a smaller setback variance that would still allow average-sized vehicles to park entirely on the property. Staff noted that the average length of a U.S. automobile is about 14.7 feet and suggested a compromise placing the house 15 feet from the right of way (a 5-foot variance) could be sufficient; during discussion staff said a 6-foot variance (resulting in a 14-foot setback) would better accommodate the petitioner—s plan without requiring the owner to redesign the planned floating patio.
Staff also reviewed the three statutory findings required to grant a variance: (1) no injurious effect to public health, safety, morals or general welfare; (2) no substantial adverse effect on adjacent properties; and (3) strict application would result in practical difficulties. Staff concluded that a lot-size variance was reasonable given the lot's historic use and that a modest setback variance could be justified without creating sidewalk or intersection-visibility hazards.
"Residential housing is a huge need in Clinton County, really throughout Indiana," the staff presenter said in recommending that a limited setback variance be considered. Board members debated possible design alternatives, including shifting the house on the lot or reconfiguring driveway and garage placement to preserve the patio or provide adequate off-street parking.
A board member moved to approve the lot-size variance in full and to grant a setback variance equal to 6 feet (resulting in a 14-foot setback from the north right of way). Another member seconded the motion. The board approved the motion by roll call; recorded yes votes included Andy Bailey, Grant/Brett Mueller, Stacy Pedigo, Scott Husensberger, and Chester (recorded as Venkus/Pencos in the transcript). Staff instructed the petitioner to revise the site plan to reflect the approved setbacks and submit the revised plan for permitting.
The board's action permits the petitioner to pursue permitting for a new dwelling on Lot 6 under the approved lot-size and setback variances. The transcript records no written objections submitted at the hearing and no additional conditions beyond the revised site-plan requirement.
