Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitestown BZA approves reduced parking variance for Clark Dental Office, 3–2
Summary
The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow 30 parking spaces for the proposed 5,000 sq ft Clark Dental Office (file BZA24-009-VA), down from the petitioner’s request for 37; board members debated UDO parking ratios, PUD implications and future precedent.
The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 9 approved a parking-variance for the proposed Clark Dental Office, voting 3–2 to allow 30 spaces instead of the 37 requested by the applicant.
Planning staff told the board the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) parking standard (UDO 7.10) sets office parking between 2 and 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; for a 5,000-square-foot office that yields a maximum of 20 spaces. The petitioner sought 37 spaces; staff recommended approval, noting the Bridal Oaks PUD requires a 20-foot landscape buffer that will screen much of the parking behind the building.
Kevin Steely of Terra Site, representing Dr. Clark, said the owner plans to occupy the full building eventually but will build roughly 3,000 square feet initially and expand by about 2,000 square feet within three to five years. Steely said the applicant asked for approval now for the full potential parking so future expansion would already be permitted. “She wanted as many as I could fit,” Steely said when asked how the 37-space figure was chosen.
Board members split on whether the variance met the UDO’s hardship criteria. One member said, “This is our third one of these requests in the last six months,” and argued that repeated variances suggest the UDO or the PUD text needs revision to avoid recurring exceptions. That member said the record did not show a practical difficulty that would justify the full 37 spaces and favored denying rather than granting a variance that could set a precedent.
Other members raised operational concerns — staff counts, patient turnover and deliveries — and said they would be comfortable approving a reduced number. One board member suggested a compromise in the 25–30 range. After site-plan discussion, the petitioner agreed that removing seven stalls along the southern edge would reduce the total to 30 and would also push parking farther from the street and trail buffer.
Member Snowberger moved to approve BZA24-009-VA with the parking total reduced from 37 to 30; Miss Hass seconded. Roll-call voting, as read into the record, recorded Mister Akins and Mister Stevens voting yes, Mister McGee and Mister Kingshill voting no, and Miss Hass voting yes. The motion passed 3–2. The chair confirmed the variance runs with the land by default (the motion did not add an owner-tied condition).
What happens next: The board approved the variance as amended on the record; any future change in code to address recurring variance requests would follow the planning commission and town council review process, which staff estimated could take roughly three to four months to carry forward.
The meeting adjourned after routine closing business.
