Zionsville staff seeks BZA guidance on counting driveways toward lot‑coverage; enforcement suspended

Planning staff asked the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals for guidance on an interim interpretation that would change how the town counts driveways and other surfaces toward lot coverage.

The written determination, circulated to the board, notes a conflict in the zoning ordinance’s definitions: "driveway" is defined as the area between the right‑of‑way and the minimum required setback, while "lot coverage" is measured by impervious area. Under the staff interpretation, portions of a constructed drive or paved area beyond the setback could be counted against lot coverage unless an owner submits certified engineering plans showing the surface will allow infiltration similar to natural ground.

Planning staff (Jonathan) told the board that historically the town had exempted the perceived driveway area from lot‑coverage calculations but that the written determination would require engineer‑stamped submittals to claim a surface as pervious. The planning director reported he has suspended enforcement of the October 2025 determination while seeking BZA feedback and recommended that the town consider a future text amendment to the zoning ordinance for clarity.

Board members expressed a mix of support for the staff’s objective—reducing stormwater and flood risk in the village—and concern about practical implications. One board member cautioned, "I don't trust all engineers," voicing worry about fraudulent certifications or long‑term degradation of pervious surfaces; another noted that requiring engineering submittals could impose additional costs on property owners (hourly rates cited in discussion: $120–$150; total project costs described as "likely several hundred to a few thousand dollars"). Members also discussed alternatives including retaining a simple minimum‑natural‑ground requirement (staff cited a 35% lot‑coverage threshold as a relevant example) or allowing waivers tied to more expensive underground stormwater measures.

Several board members emphasized the issue is most acute in the village, where flooding is documented, and asked staff to refine the approach and come back with clearer language and standards. Staff agreed the matter will likely require a text amendment through the Planning Commission and Town Council if the board wants a permanent rule change.

For now, the planning director said enforcement of the newer determination is suspended, reverting to prior practice while the BZA and staff develop clearer guidance. Staff asked the board for feedback at future meetings; the item is expected to return for further discussion.