Vigo County board recommends setback and unit-size variances for proposed US 40 duplex

The Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to recommend approval of setback and unit‑size variances for a proposed redevelopment at 1916 US Highway 40, board members said at a public meeting.

County planning staff told the board the petitioner proposes to remove existing structures and redevelop the site with duplex buildings. "The petitioner proposes to remove the existing structures in order to redevelop the site with 4 duplex buildings," the staff member said, and added that each dwelling unit would be roughly 500–520 square feet with one bedroom and one bathroom. Staff said the request includes a 40‑foot reduction from the standard 60‑foot front‑yard setback (which would allow buildings roughly 20 feet from the right‑of‑way) and an approximate 180‑square‑foot reduction to the minimum unit size; staff offered a favorable recommendation conditioned on the town of Sealyville approving rezoning and required subdivision and permits.

Neighbors at the meeting raised traffic, sight‑line and livability concerns. A nearby resident, speaking about the driving surface and sight distances, said, "The driving surface, that's what people be backing out onto," and argued that pavement and existing fences bring new units close to the roadway and could make turning or pulling out unsafe. Bayati Fields, who said she lives on Baker Street and owns nearby property, said she supports redevelopment generally but opposed reducing standards to allow four smaller units on the lot: "I couldn't imagine dwelling with the 500, and the safety of our kids in the neighborhood," she said. Another resident, Fred Cuvelier, said he uses Stop 18 frequently and told the board, "Traffic's gonna allow me without having to sit out on the highway," expressing concern that added backing movements would create a hazard.

Board members and staff sought to clarify the scope of the hearing. A committee member explained that setback measurements are taken from the platted right‑of‑way rather than the pavement edge and stressed that the board at this meeting was being asked only to consider the front‑yard setback and the minimum unit size. "We're just being asked for 40," the member said, referring to the requested 40‑foot reduction from the 60‑foot standard. Staff also noted that the area planning commission recommended rezoning to an R‑2 district but that the town of Sealyville still must approve any rezoning; if the town approves a rezoning that would allow a duplex, additional subdivision approvals and improvement location permits would be required before more than a single duplex could be built.

After public comment and discussion, a committee member moved that the requests were reasonable and should receive a favorable recommendation; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board also approved its findings of fact from the previous meeting and then adjourned.

Next steps: the town of Sealyville must act on the rezoning; if the town denies rezoning, the variance and any further development would not proceed as presented. If the town approves rezoning, additional subdivision and permitting steps will be required before multiple duplexes could be constructed.