Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
BZA denies request to shrink standard lots to 70 feet, preserves 80-foot standard
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals refused petition 26-04 seeking 70-foot lots at Preserved Point, finding the petitioner did not demonstrate the required practical difficulty and citing precedent concerns; the board kept the 80-foot lot standard in place.
The Crown Point City Board of Zoning Appeals declined petition 26-04, which would have reduced required lot width to 70 feet for additional portions of the Preserved Point subdivision. Board members expressed concern that the petitioner had not demonstrated the practical difficulty or hardship necessary to grant the variance and that approving the change could set an undesirable precedent for the city’s zoning standards.
Michael Herbers of Capdev LLC described the 70-foot proposal as part of a mix of lot sizes across the development and said the 70x135 lots would still provide substantial area for homeowners. "If we were to go 80 by 90 foot, which would be in a standard... lot out there, that restricts the homeowner on what they can do in the rear of the yard," Herbers said, arguing that deeper, narrower lots can be preferable for certain products.
Several board members pushed back on that rationale. One member noted that the hardship standard for granting variances must be met and that this petition "seems like it's your hardship, not ours," meaning it reflected developer preference rather than an inability to use the land without relief. Another cautioned that lowering the standard from 80 feet to 70 feet could "gut" the Crown Point zoning code by setting precedent.
Staff confirmed notices were sent and that many remonstrances were on file; public commenters again urged the board to uphold existing ordinance standards and protect neighborhood character. After deliberation a motion was made to not approve petition 26-04 and to leave lot sizes at the standard 80-foot width. The motion was seconded and the board recorded votes; the chair concluded the petition did not pass and directed that the 80-foot standard remain in place.
Because the board found the petitioner had not demonstrated the requisite practical difficulty and noted alternatives such as redrawing lots at 80-foot widths (or reducing lot counts), the variance request was denied. The decision preserves the city's existing single-family lot-width standard for the affected area.
