Wabash zoning board approves special exception for carriage‑house in‑law unit with six‑month sale restriction

The Wabash City Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to grant a special exception for 387 North Wbash Street that allows the conversion of a 21‑by‑20 carriage house into a one‑bedroom accessory or "mother‑in‑law" unit, with a condition preventing the approval from transferring to any buyer who purchases the property within six months.

Abraham L. Patentale, the applicant, told the board he and his family moved to Wabash about two years ago and need room to care for three elders on his wife’s side; he said the proposed unit would be attached to the household utilities and not function as a separate, self‑contained rental. "We now have three adopted children and we have three elders that we need to move in and take care of on my wife's side," Patentale said.

Board members discussed several ways to protect neighborhood expectations if the property changes hands. Staff confirmed notices were mailed and a sign posted; no written objections or neighbors were present. The board and staff reviewed R3 zoning language, explaining that while R3 allows multifamily buildings, the ordinance generally discourages two principal dwellings on a single lot unless the development qualifies as an apartment building under the code.

After debating options — granting an unconditional approval, approving it only if Patentale remains the owner for a specified period, or approving it only after a permit is filed and work begun — the board opted for the condition that the approval would not carry to a buyer if the property were sold within six months. The board explained the restriction preserves the option for a buyer to return to the board and seek approval on their own merits if a sale occurs within that window.

The board did not record individual roll‑call votes in the public transcript; the chair announced that the special exception with the six‑month non‑sale restriction "has been approved unanimously." The applicant said he had accepted a contingent offer and sought certainty before investing in construction.

The board also discussed an alternative condition favored by some members: requiring that a permit be filed or construction be started within a specified time if the board wanted to ensure the approval would be acted on. Staff noted that imposing an indefinite permanent restriction on sale is generally not appropriate and that time‑limited contingencies are typical when boards want to avoid granting an approval that simply sits unused.

The board concluded the item by instructing the applicant on next steps for permit filing and reminding him that if any condition expires or the property changes ownership in the restricted period, a subsequent owner must appear before the board to seek similar relief.

The decision is procedural and does not itself authorize construction; permits and building‑code approvals remain necessary before work begins.