Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tippecanoe County BZA approves setback and coverage variances for Western Drive home
Summary
The Tippecanoe County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 22 approved two variances allowing an addition to a single‑family home at 1619 Western Drive, reducing a south side setback and increasing building coverage.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The Tippecanoe County Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved two variances on Oct. 22 allowing an addition to a single‑family home at 1619 Western Drive.
The board granted variances to reduce a south side setback from the required 6 feet to 1 foot and to increase maximum building coverage from 30% to 31.3% for the property recorded as Lot 113, Northwestern Heights subdivision. The board voted 6–0 on both variances.
Nathan McBurnett, planning staff with the Area Plan Commission (APC), told the board the setback variance had been heard previously and staff recommended denial this evening because, in staff’s view, the petition did not satisfy all of the legal tests for a variance. “We don’t see a hardship here,” McBurnett said, and added that the property “is not uncommon compared to other R‑1 properties” in the subdivision.
The petitioner, who identified himself as Bill Gettings, said the proposed rear addition would not extend beyond the existing south perimeter of the house and would be built “on a very straight line” with the current exterior. Gettings said the home’s current physical layout predates the setbacks shown on the plat and that the proposed work would not push the home any closer to the neighbor than existing features such as the fireplace.
A neighbor, Justin McCarthy of 1609 Western Drive, spoke in opposition, saying he was concerned that the reduction in setback could limit his ability to add onto his house in the future. Gettings replied that much of the house already sits within the setback created after construction and reiterated that the proposed addition would not extend beyond the current perimeter.
Board members asked clarifying questions about site plans and whether any part of the request exceeded what was advertised. Gettings told the board he had discussed a potential 33% coverage figure with his builder but had not put that higher number into the formal petition; staff and counsel confirmed increasing the requested coverage beyond the advertised 31.3% would require re‑advertising and continuation of the case.
The board cast six ballots. On variance No. 1 (south side setback) the tally was 6 yes, 0 no; on variance No. 2 (building coverage) the tally was 6 yes, 0 no. Both motions were recorded as approved.
The petitioner and staff said construction details and the building permit process will follow the board decision; no additional conditions were recorded in the hearing minutes.
