Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances for 287 State Road 130 subdivision, conditioned on plan commission review
Summary
The Valparaiso Board of Zoning Appeals granted four variances to Luke Land LLC for a proposed 146‑lot subdivision at 287 State Road 130, conditioning approval on the planning commission later approving a substantially similar layout; the vote was 5–0.
The Valparaiso Board of Zoning Appeals on March 17 approved variances requested by Luke Land LLC to allow a proposed residential subdivision at 287 State Road 130. The board granted four variances — reducing minimum lot width from 60 to 50 feet, increasing maximum block length from 800 to 1,075 feet, reducing minimum centerline radii from 150 to 100 feet, and relocating the required buffer yard to the commercial outlot — and made approval contingent on the planning commission’s approval of a substantially similar layout.
Dan Turzman, representing Luke Land, said the proposal covers a roughly 70‑acre parent parcel with about 66 acres planned for single‑family residential development and a little over 4 acres reserved as a commercial outlot. The developer proposes about 146 single‑family lots; Turzman said wetlands bisect the site and a NIPSCO power easement crosses the parcel, which prompted the variance requests and design adjustments such as added crosswalks, traffic calming and no‑parking signs at turns.
Board members asked whether the BZA’s action would simply recommend to the planning commission or constitute independent variance approval. Planning staff and the city attorney explained that the BZA acts under statutory criteria for granting variances and that the planning commission will later review the subdivision; the BZA’s approval can be made contingent on the plan commission approving a substantially similar layout to protect the city and ensure the variances apply to this proposed design.
A motion to grant all four variances — amended to make approval contingent on the plan commission’s substantially similar approval — was moved, seconded and approved on a roll call vote, 5–0. Staff said additional fine‑tuning will likely occur before secondary approval and that utilities or easements might require minor adjustments, but the board was comfortable with the petitioner’s mitigation for safety and circulation after a verified auto‑turn analysis.
The variances will proceed to the planning commission as scheduled; the BZA directed staff to ensure the plan commission’s approval is substantially similar to the layout presented to the BZA.
