Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance 10 S 6th topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zionsville BZA approves variance for garage at historic 10 South 6th Street with binding commitments
Summary
The Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals approved a use variance allowing an attached garage addition at 10 South 6th Street on July 1, 2026, contingent on commitments that the addition remain part of a single‑family dwelling and contain no permanent cooking appliances; the motion passed 4‑0.
The Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals voted July 1 to approve a use variance allowing construction of an attached garage and second‑floor space at 10 South 6th Street, a parcel that contains two residences established before current zoning rules. The board approved the variance 4‑0 after accepting commitments from the petitioner that the addition will remain part of a single‑family dwelling and that no permanent cooking appliance will be installed or provisioned in the new space.
The hearing resumed a continued docket (2026‑12 UV) after staff summarized the project and said the proposed work complies with development standards but remained an expansion of a legally established nonconforming use. "The proposed addition is going to remain a single family dwelling," staff said as one of the submitted commitments, and staff told the board inspectors would check plans and electrical connections to ensure the space could not be considered a separate dwelling unit.
Petitioner Todd Rotman, who gave his address at the hearing, said the two homes on the parcel predate current zoning and argued the situation is not self‑created. "I view that differently being that these two homes were on the property prior to the current zoning," Rotman said, urging the board to consider hardship for the owners if forced to remove a dwelling to gain compliance.
Board members discussed technical limits on BZA authority and the language of the petitioner’s commitments. Members and staff noted that a separate dwelling is commonly identified by the presence of built‑in cooking facilities or the higher‑capacity electrical connections used by ranges; staff and the petitioner agreed to tighten the commitment language to clarify that no means to provision a permanent cooking appliance would be provided.
A motion to approve the variance as presented — adopting findings in the staff report while altering finding 4 to reflect that strict application of the ordinance constituted an unnecessary hardship because both dwellings were lawfully built before the current ordinance — passed on a roll call vote. The roll‑call record listed Jim Hurst, Josh Martin, Amanda Miller and Josh Fedor voting in favor; the motion carried 4‑0.
The board’s approval included the petitioner’s written commitments that (1) the existing 1862 house and its proposed addition shall remain a single‑family dwelling with no part subdivided or leased separately and (2) no permanent cooking appliance shall be installed or provisioned in the proposed addition. Staff said those commitments will be enforceable through the building‑permit and inspection process.
The board did not adopt any action that would remove the parcel’s nonconforming classification; staff noted that only a rezoning or replat could accomplish that. With the variance approved and commitments recorded, staff and the petitioner will proceed with permitting per the normal review process.
Votes at a glance: the board also granted two continuances to Aug. 5, 2026 (petition 202615U for a warehouse project requiring a traffic impact study and petition 202616UV for insufficient public noticing), both by 4‑0 votes earlier in the meeting.
The hearing concluded after other business; the board adjourned following a final roll call vote.
