Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies variance for enlarged garage at 6462 Broadway after staff opposes expansion
Summary
The Metropolitan BZA denied a request to expand an existing detached garage at 6462 Broadway, concluding staff concerns about precedent and lack of practical difficulty outweighed the petitioner’s arguments.
Hannah Abel, architect representing property owners Melissa Jackson and Andrew Melhop, asked the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1, for variances to enlarge a rear detached garage at 6462 Broadway. The board denied the petition after staff recommended denial and four members voted against the proposal.
Abel told the board the owners sought an 18-foot tandem addition to an existing 21-by-22-foot garage to store a trailer attached to a work truck and to create four covered parking spaces, and that neighbors and the Broad Ripple Village Association had submitted letters of support. Abel said the project would expand an existing legally nonconforming accessory structure and that removing the existing long concrete driveway to relocate access to the alley was not feasible for the owners.
Staff recommended denial. Division of Planning staff told the board the proposed expansion would increase a legal nonconformity beyond the ordinance’s extension exception (the ordinance allows up to a 50% expansion for certain nonconforming structures; the petitioner proposed roughly an 81% expansion). Staff said nearby properties do not have comparably large accessory buildings or dual front-and-rear loading and that allowing this expansion would set an undesirable precedent in the neighborhood and run counter to walkable neighborhood principles by perpetuating more front-loaded curb cuts.
Board members questioned whether a compliant alternative — moving the addition north on the lot or limiting access to the alley — could meet the owner's needs without variances. The petitioner said maneuverability and the owner’s trailer made those options impractical. The board voted: Andrew Catona no; David Duncan yes; Peter Nelson no; Jennifer Witt yes; Tom Barnes no. The variance was not granted.
Why it matters: The decision reflects staff and the board’s emphasis on limiting expansions that increase front yard vehicle access and on preserving the walkable pattern the ordinance intends to protect. Petitioner options include redesigning to comply with setback and loading requirements or seeking a different site plan that reduces the front access.
The denial means the garage addition as proposed cannot proceed under the requested variances; the property may continue to use existing configurations that predate current setback rules.
