Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fishers BZA denies variance to expand garage and split parcel at 16465 E. 101st St.
Summary
The Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 voted down a petition to enlarge a legal nonconforming accessory structure, reduce a lot size and lessen a front setback at 16465 East 101st Street; staff offered no recommendation and neighbors raised stormwater concerns.
The Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 denied a variance request (VA-25-9) that would have allowed enlargement of an existing accessory structure and subdivision of the parcel at 16465 East 101st Street.
The petition sought a development-standards variance from sections 2.3.0.4 and 3.2.0.3 of the City of Fishers Unified Development Ordinance to increase a legal nonconforming accessory structure from 240 square feet to 576 square feet (a 140% increase), reduce the city’s minimum lot size requirement from 15,000 square feet to 4,950 square feet, and reduce the front setback from 40 feet to 7 feet. Amanda Jeske, representing property owner Jim Wilson, presented the request; Gabrielle Herron, senior planner, outlined staff analysis and recommended no position from staff.
The variance package would have split roughly 0.11 acres from the subject parcel and combined it with an adjacent property at 16423 E. 101st St. Jeske told the board the split would create a straight driveway access for a planned house on the neighboring three-acre parcel and that the owner planned to remove one two-car accessory structure and replace storage so the existing owner would retain roughly the same garage capacity. "He's not here tonight," Jeske said, noting she represented Jim Wilson.
Herron told the board the subject lot and structures are legal nonconforming because they were established before the Unified Development Ordinance took effect in 2018. Herron said the city’s recent UDO update reduced the front setback along local streets in residential zoning from 40 feet to 25 feet, but the petitioner’s requested setback (7 feet) remained well below even the updated standard. "The request is for the consideration of a development standards variance ... to allow an increase in size of [a] legal nonconforming structure from 240 square feet to 576 square feet," Herron said.
Board members asked whether adjacent homeowners had been contacted; Herron said staff had communicated with the commenters and had addressed those concerns. The most substantive concern identified by neighbors was stormwater runoff tied to the proposed new driveway. Herron said the new house and driveway had not yet been designed and would be required to meet city residential building-permit stormwater standards at the time of construction.
No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. A motion to approve the petition — conditioned on recording the approval and related documentation with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office — failed on a roll call vote. Board members recorded votes as follows: Grinslade, no; Silvey, no; Stevenson, no; Lannon, yes; Ferrucci, yes. The motion therefore failed and the petition was denied.
Because the board denied the variance request, no subdivision or expansion authorized by VA-25-9 will proceed unless the petitioner reapplies or pursues another avenue before the city.
