Board of Zoning Appeals approves front-yard accessory structure at 1 Edgewater Drive

The Elkhart City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow a detached accessory structure in the front yard of 1 Edgewater Drive, permitting petitioners Christopher Chadwick and Pamela Chadwick to build a storage structure that staff said would not be visible from nearby public streets.

The variance allows the structure to be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, an exception to Section 26.1 B2 of the city's zoning ordinance. The board voted to adopt the petitioners’ presentation and the staff’s findings of fact as the board’s findings; the motion passed with all members voting yes.

The petitioners were represented at the hearing by Jay, a Team Construction representative, who told the board that heavy slope in the rear yard made locating the structure behind the house impractical. "We'd like to build a storage, facility, storage building, she shed, if you will, in front of their property," Jay said. He also said the petitioners revised the plans to remove a 9-foot overhead garage door and replace it with double 6-foot hinged doors to make vehicle storage impractical.

Planning staff recommended approval, citing several findings of fact: the lot’s narrow frontage and two front-yard condition are unique characteristics; placing the structure at the proposed southwest corner would minimize visibility from East Jackson Boulevard and protect neighboring properties’ views of the St. Joseph River; the property is not in a designated flood area; and the structure would be built to applicable building codes. Staff noted that, because a door large enough for a vehicle had originally been included, an approved driveway would normally have been required, but staff indicated that removing the overhead door undercuts that requirement.

The board heard no public comments in favor or in opposition during the public meeting portion. Staff reported that 18 notices were mailed to nearby property owners, two were returned, one returned in favor (no comment) and one returned not in favor (no comment).

During deliberations a board member asked whether the driveway condition should be removed given the petitioners’ revised drawings; staff confirmed the board could strike the driveway condition. The board then moved to approve the petition and to adopt the petitioners’ documents and staff’s findings of fact as the board’s findings.

Formal action taken: the board approved petition 24BZA07 and adopted the staff findings as the board’s findings. The approval included the condition that the structure be built in conformance with applicable building codes; the previously proposed driveway requirement was removed after the petitioner revised the door design.

The petitioners may proceed with permitting and construction subject to the city’s building-permit process and any remaining zoning/building-code conditions required by staff.