Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Village Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA conditionally OKs village lot-coverage variance after owner agrees to remove pavers
Summary
The board conditionally approved a lot-coverage variance at 190 North Maple Street in Zionsville’s village, contingent on removal of an approximately 480-square-foot paved patio; the petitioner withdrew a separate side-yard setback request by agreeing to a revised plan that meets the setback standard.
Zionsville’s Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 6 conditionally approved a development-standards variance allowing a modest increase in lot coverage for a home at 190 North Maple Street, on the condition that the owner remove roughly 480 square feet of existing paving on the south side of the house.
Planning staff opposed a straightforward increase in impervious surface because the lot already exceeded lot-coverage limits in the urban village (staff cited potential drainage concerns), but recommended the board consider that the petition would actually improve the existing nonconformity in one respect: the owner agreed to reconfigure an overbuilt brick paver patio and to reduce the proposed addition’s width so that the aggregate side-yard setback would improve from 6.5 feet to 14 feet (the code standard is 15 feet).
Architect Tony Bowling, speaking for owner Tom Bennett, said the brick paver patio is aged and has become compacted and that replacing the area with lawn while adding a 150-square-foot all-season room would reduce water runoff compared with the current surface. "We're removing the permeable paver and replacing it with grass in much of the area and designing an addition that will be narrower to improve the side-yard setback," Bowling said.
Board members discussed the net change to impervious area and the practical drainage differences between compacted pavers and turf. After the petitioner committed to removing the pavers and narrowing the addition, the board approved the lot-coverage variance on the condition that the specified paver area be removed and returned to vegetated surface. The separate request to reduce the side-yard aggregate setback was not required after the design change (petitioner agreed to a revised plan meeting the setback requirement).
