Richmond board approves variances allowing two duplexes and reduced driveway spacing at Fair Acres amid neighborhood objections

The Richmond Board of Zoning Appeals voted Jan. 14 to approve a pair of variances that allow two duplex buildings to replace four undeveloped lots at the entrance to the Fair Acres subdivision and to reduce the required separation between driveways on Fair Acres Road.

Gordon Moore of Beals Moore & Associates, speaking for owner Doug and Diane Properties LLC, told the board the four original lots (platted in 1953) would be combined into two parcels and developed as two duplexes, producing four residential units. Moore said each side of the duplexes would be about 916 square feet with a one‑car garage and that utilities are available at the site. Developer Doug Tharpe said construction would start as soon as ground conditions allow and estimated the project could be complete in about six months; he said owners plan to retain the property rather than sell it.

"We started furnishing the homes or apartments, and we filled them up quick," Tharpe said, describing earlier projects he said were rented to Reed Hospital staff.

The proposal rests in part on the applicant’s contention that the expansion of US 27 reduced the lots’ size and that the Indiana Department of Transportation will not permit new driveways onto US 27. Moore said that constraint makes building four conforming single‑family homes impractical and justified relief from the unified development ordinance’s driveway separation and use standards.

Erica Decker, a nearby homeowner, opposed the use variance in public comment, arguing the applicant had not shown an "unnecessary hardship" and that the matter should be treated as a rezoning rather than a variance. "I don't believe this is a variance. I believe this case specifically would be a rezoning case instead," Decker said, adding that access constraints created by INDOT do not, by themselves, establish the legal standard for a variance.

Several residents cited flooding and drainage problems near the site and said increased impervious surface could worsen runoff. Aaron Miller, who lives nearby, said recurring flooding reaches garages and yards on heavy rains and worried the project could increase those problems. Other neighbors raised concerns about property values, the maintenance of rental properties and whether residents received timely notice of the public hearing.

Staff recommended approval, citing the original 1953 platting, the reduction in lot area after US 27's right‑of‑way expansion, and the inability to obtain INDOT driveways onto US 27. The staff report said 24 adjacent property owners were notified by mail and that staff found the requested relief would not harm public health, safety or welfare and was consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan identifying the parcel as a "traditional neighborhood."

A motion to approve the use‑variance petition (BZA 3‑2026) passed on a 3‑2 roll‑call vote: Jeff Cook—No; Rob Tidrow—No; Nathan Sheets—Yes; Josh Imhoff—Yes; Sherry Oler Hemingway—Yes.

The board then heard a separate petition (BZA 4‑2026) to reduce the UDO driveway separation requirement below the 16‑foot standard for the southern combined lot. Moore said topographical surveys and coordination with county permitting would finalize driveway placement and that the expected separation would be approximately 10–15 feet. Staff reported that departments and utilities raised no health or safety objections and recommended approval based on practical difficulties posed by lot configuration and limited frontage. The driveway‑separation variance was approved unanimously.

The approvals include standard permitting steps and, in the case of access, acknowledged that county or state permits governing driveways and sight‑lines remain required before construction. Staff also noted possible limits if a variance is not exercised within a statutory period; the board discussed that a recorded variance typically runs with the land unless conditions or abandonment provisions apply.

The board’s actions clear the way for the applicant to prepare a topographical survey and final site plans required for building permits and for county or state driveway approvals. Neighbors seeking to challenge the decisions were advised during the hearing that the record and final written findings will reflect the board's rationale and the statutory basis for any appeal.