Zionsville BZA asks staff to re-examine variance standard; seeks 'practical difficulty' guidance

Members of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals discussed whether the town should use a different legal standard for development‑standard variances.

At a prior plan commission meeting, staff and commissioners had considered replacing the local "unnecessary hardship" standard with a "practical difficulty" test for development-standard variances; town council later rejected the proposed amendment as written. Board members on Tuesday said they would like staff to re-examine the matter and return with clearer recommendations.

Legal counsel and staff explained the practical differences: "practical difficulty" is generally easier for petitioners to meet than "unnecessary hardship," which is a higher bar rooted in case law about use variances. Counsel emphasized that changing the standard does not remove the board’s discretion to deny an application; it changes how readily a petitioner may meet the legal finding.

Board members asked staff to draft options that distinguish development-standard variances (where "practical difficulty" is commonly used) from use variances, and to analyze whether different standards should apply in rural and urban areas. The board requested sample language, case examples, and anticipated implications for appeals so members can decide whether to forward a recommendation to the plan commission and, if appropriate, to town council.

Next steps: staff and legal counsel will prepare a memorandum and draft ordinance language outlining the options and implications and present that material to the plan commission or a future BZA work session.