Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.

Board approves variance to allow two‑unit building closer to street at 5829 Columbia Ave.

Hammond City Board of Zoning Appeals · April 28, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hammond City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a developmental variance to reduce the front-yard setback from 25 to 15 feet for a proposed two‑unit building at 5829 Columbia Avenue, subject to technical review and final staff approval of building and site plans.

The Hammond City Board of Zoning Appeals on a motion approved a developmental variance allowing a two‑unit building at 5829 Columbia Avenue to be set 15 feet from the street instead of the 25 feet required by the zoning code. The board’s approval was conditioned on technical review and final approval of building and site plans by city staff and included a recommendation to adopt anti‑theft measures for the project.

Staff recommended granting the variance, saying many buildings along Columbia Avenue in the Pullman Standard historic district sit closer to the street than the 25‑foot setback and that a new two‑unit structure would be consistent with the immediate block’s pattern. "When we compared that to the houses along the street, all those houses and other duplexes are set closer to the street than the 25 foot setback," a staff member summarized during the presentation.

Roberto Garcia, who identified himself as representing petitioner Maurice Dawkins, told the board the project is a duplex and discussed the plans on behalf of the petitioner. Staff also reported that the original building on the lot had been a four‑unit structure and explained how the proposed duplex’s footprint compares to past development on the parcel.

A board member moved to approve the developmental variances with the written conditions; another member seconded the motion. The record shows the board accepted the staff report and findings of fact into the record and then approved the variance; applause followed the vote. The approval requires that final elevations and site plans receive technical sign‑off by city staff before construction permits are issued.

The board did not read a full roll‑call tally on the motion in the transcript; the approval was recorded in the meeting record with the staff conditions noted. The board moved on to other agenda items after the decision.