Elkhart BZA upholds ADU use but denies size variance after neighborhood objections

The Elkhart City Board of Zoning Appeals on March 12 voted to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in principle for a property at 1746 E. Beardsley Ave but denied the petitioner's request to keep the currently installed unit at its existing size and placement.

Nicole Hoban Dobler, the property owner and petitioner, told the board she placed the 748-square-foot unit in her backyard to care for her aging mother, saying she had “done everything I need to do to be compliant” and that the unit is hooked to existing utilities. She said added costs — including an inspector-required cement crawlspace — increased the project's expense and argued reversing earlier approval would cause undue hardship.

Neighbors, however, urged the board to deny parts of the request. David Henke, identifying himself as the councilman for the area, told the board “the petitioner outright lied” about aspects of the installation and raised concerns about the structure’s foundation, its orientation, lack of a separate address and its location on a snow route without a curb cut. Multiple residents said earlier hearings suggested a stick-built “tiny house” that would face the street; speakers said the placed unit looks like a mobile home and harms privacy and property values.

Staff recommended a split outcome: approve the use variance (allowing ADUs generally) and the variance to permit up to three accessory structures on the lot, but deny the square-footage variance so the total accessory area remains capped at 840 square feet. Staff’s suggested conditions included that any approved ADU must be stick-built, have a primary facade and front entrance that face the street, be secondary to the main dwelling, connect utilities to the primary dwelling, and be subject to a deed restriction requiring owner occupancy.

After deliberation, the board adopted the staff’s findings of fact, approving in part the petitioner’s request (use variance and allowing up to three accessory structures) while denying the developmental variance that would have allowed the ADU’s current size and location to remain. The board directed the conditions recommended by staff be recorded and enforced; under that outcome the existing unit as installed does not meet the conditions and could not remain unless brought into compliance (for example, reoriented, rebuilt as stick construction and reduced in square footage to fit the 840-sq-ft total allowance).

The board’s decision was made by roll call. The motion to adopt staff findings and deny the square-footage variance carried with the members present voting in favor. Board counsel guided the members through adoption of findings and placement of the conditions; staff will follow up with technical and recording instructions. The petitioner was told she may discuss options with staff and the city after the meeting.

Next steps: the board’s findings and any recorded deed restriction will be prepared and the petitioner must comply with the stated conditions before an ADU with habitation rights could be permitted at the site.