Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vigo County hearing approves two variances to allow light‑industrial building to become duplex; no action on hard‑surface request
Summary
At a Vigo County zoning hearing, officials approved variances for setbacks and parking to allow conversion of a light‑industrial building into a duplex, while taking no action on a requested exception for hard‑surface parking; rezoning to residential was noted as a separate process.
An applicant seeking to convert a light‑industrial building into a duplex won approval for two variances at a Vigo County zoning hearing, while a separate request related to hard‑surface parking received no motion.
The applicant said, "They're putting a duplex in," and described the proposal as a conversion rather than a new building. A planning staff member clarified that rezoning the property from light industrial to residential would be a separate process and was not on the table at the hearing.
The variances under consideration were internal/side setbacks and off‑site parking. Planning staff recommended approval of those two items and issued an unfavorable recommendation on the request concerning hard‑surface parking. The applicant made a motion "to approve per staff recommendation," which a second member supported. Members present voted in favor of the first two recommendations; the record shows no motion taken on the hard‑surface parking request.
Board members and staff spent most of the discussion clarifying scope: whether the building itself would change (the applicant said the building would remain and be converted), and that the hearing was addressing only the listed variances rather than the separate rezoning application. One staff speaker summarized: "...the parking question, the setback question, and the hard surface parking. It's really that's all he is. That's all we're considering right now."
Meeting minutes record the motion to approve the two variances as approved by voice vote. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally or named votes. After the action, the hearing moved on; staff reported no additional communications from the public and a motion to adjourn followed.
The rezoning to residential — needed for the duplex use to be established in zoning records — was noted by staff as a separate request that must be pursued outside this variance proceeding. The record does not state whether or when the applicant intends to file for rezoning, nor does it provide an address or parcel number for the subject property.
No monetary amounts, precise voter tallies, or final permit conditions were specified in the transcript.
