HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.01.22 BZA Agenda Packet
1 | P a g e
City of South Bend
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
Monday, August 1, 2022 - 4:00 p.m.
County-City Building
Fourth-Floor Council Chambers
www.tinyurl.com/sbbza
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Location: 4007 KIRBY CT BZA#0116-22
Owner: JOHN C & SHARON K ENGSTROM
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow a fence to be erected so the finished side of the
fence faces the interior of the lot
Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1
Request to table to September 6, 2022
2. Location: 3825 WILLIAM RICHARDSON DR BZA#0117-22
Owner: OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC ATTN: JERRY CANADA
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established front
yard to 8'; and 2) to allow barbed wire on the fence
Zoning: I Industrial
3. Location: 4316 MICHIGAN BZA#0120-22
Owner: The BarClay Corporation
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the required 200' lineal spacing from a public park to
162' and from the maximum allowable 35' height to 50' for a billboard
Zoning: C Commercial
4. Location: 404 INDIANA AVE BZA#0122-22
Owner: 466 WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow accessory structures without a primary building; and
2) from the 4' maximum fence height to 6'
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
5. Location: 1430 MISHAWAKA AVE BZA#0118-22
Owner: JAIME DIAZ
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow parking in the established front/corner yard; 2) from
the 5' minimum parking area screening to none; and 3) from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Zoning: NC Neighborhood Center
6. Location: 223 N. LAFAYETTE BLVD BZA#0119-22
Owner: SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE % MARK HOCKER
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 60% minimum transparency to 5%
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Zoning: DT Downtown
City of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2 | P a g e
7. Location: 344 BERCLIFF DR BZA#0124-22
Owner: VICKY L HOLAWAY
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 3' maximum fence height in the established
front/corner yard to 8'; and 2) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established rear yard to 8'
Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1
8. Location: 1908 CALVERT ST BZA#0125-22
Owner: SUSAN MWANGI UND 1/2 INT AND ANDREW MWANGI UND 1/2 INT
Requested Action: Special Exception: Dwelling, 2 units
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
9. Location: 914 SHERMAN AVE BZA#0121-22
Owner: NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD INC
Requested Action: Special Exception: Dwelling, 2 Units
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
10. Location: 316 N. OLIVE BZA#0123-22
Owner: SUSAN MWANGI UND 1/2 INT AND ANDREW MWANGI UND 1/2 INT
Requested Action: Special Exception: Dwelling, 2 units
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
Request to table to September 6, 2022
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Findings of Fact – June 6, 2022
2. Minutes – June 6, 2022 3. Other Business 4. Adjournment
NOTICE FOR HEARING AND SIGN IMPAIRED PERSONS Auxiliary Aid or other services may be available upon request at no charge. Please give reasonable advance request when possible.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 3825 WILLIAM RICHARDSON DR
Owner: OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC ATTN: JERRY CANADA, Zeb King
Project Summary
Replace existing fence with the addition of barbed wire.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established front yard to 8'
2) to allow barbed wire on the fence
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
approve variance #1 for the height of the fence, and deny variance #2 for the addition of barbed wire.
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
The proposed height variance should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community. The primary building is set back significantly from the
right of way. Allowing a taller fence in the front yard where indicated on the site plan should
not have injurious impacts on the community.
The proposed barbed wire variance may be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community. Barbed wire is not an appropriate material to be used in
the city for fences unless where specifically stated in the Zoning Ordinance where restricted
public access is vital. Furthermore, barbed wire is not allowed in front or corner yards for
even those allowed uses.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
The proposed height variance should not impact use and value of the adjacent properties
due to the significant setback of the primary building.
The proposed barbed wire variance may be injurious as it is an inappropriate material for
fencing material.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the continued
use of the property regarding the height variance. Due to the increased setback of the
building, the fence would have be setback significantly further into the property than
neighboring properties.
Strict application of the barbed wire terms of the zoning ordinance would not result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property. The use of the property does not require a
barbed wire fence.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The proposed height variance is the minimum necessary to provide adequate security to the
property. The proposed barbed wire variance is not the minimum necessary to provide
security to the property.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The building location deep into the property in an industrial park creates the hardship for the
fence variance.
The petitioner's desire for the barbed wire is a hardship created by the petitioner.
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
Analysis: The primary building is approximately 225' from the right of way, creating a larger
than normal established front yard. Allowing a taller fence in the front yard where indicated on
the site plan should not have injurious impacts on the community. While it is technically in the
established front yard it is set back a significant distance from the road and behind other site
improvements on the property. The proposed height variance should not impact use and value
of the adjacent properties due to the significant setback of the primary building.
The proposed barbed wire variance, however, is not an appropriate material to be used in the
City, especially in the front yard. This is not a use in which the federal or state government
require that security measure. There are other security measures available to the petitioner,
including the height variance for the fence.
Staff Recommendation: Based on information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board approve variance #1 for the height of the fence, and deny variance #2
for the addition of barbed wire.
Analysis & Recommendation
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 4316 Michigan
Owner: The BarClay Corporation
Project Summary
Replace existing static billboard with a digit face.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the required 200' lineal spacing from a public park to 162' and from the
maximum allowable 35' height to 50' for a billboard
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny the variances, as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval would have a negative impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare of
the community. Two important purposes of the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance is
to protect public and private investment in buildings and open spaces, eliminate potential
hazards to motorists and pedestrians resulting from signs. By granting the variances, the
non-conforming off-premise sign face would be replaced with a digital display facing a
nearby park. This would not only affect the public and private investment nearby, but
creating a changing display which may create a hazard to motorists as well.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
The use and value of adjacent properties may be negatively impacted if the variances are
approved. Allowing an off-premise sign to be legalized in a location not otherwise allowed by
the Ordinance is in conflict with the intent of purpose of the sign regulations, which could
have a negative impact on the use and value of the adjacent properties.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
There are no practical difficulties created by the strict application of the Ordinance. The sign
can continue to exist in the current manner until such time as the structure needs to be
replaced. The only practical difficulty is the sign owners desire to remove the sign face to
replace it with a digital display.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
There are no practical difficulties on the property, so the variance requested is not the
minimum necessary. The sign is legal non-conforming. The owner's desire to replace the
static message with a digital display. The sign is allowed to be refaced as needed, which
allows the use to continue as originally approved. When a variance was pursued to allow a
digital display, the petitioner specifically stated that it would only be limited to the south face
in order to limit the exposure to the park.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The variance requested is not to correct a hardship, but because the sign owner has a
desire to convert the static display to a digital display in order to generate more income.
Analysis: The non-conforming provisions of the Ordinance are designed to allow legally
established structures to continue, but not encourage their survival. Granting the variance
requested would legalize the structure and allow it to exist in perpetuity. Any conversion of a
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
sign from a static display to a digital display should be treated as a new sign. If there is no
practical difficulty that would warrant the installation of a new off-premise sign in a manner that
doesn't meet the current separation and height requirements, than the variance should not be
approved.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board deny the variances, as presented.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 404 INDIANA AVE
Owner: 466 WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, United Way of St.
Joseph County, Attn: Laura Jensen
Project Summary
To allow for a temporary fenced play area for the new neighborhood center's daycare until
construction of the playground can be completed.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) to allow accessory structures without a primary building
2) from the 4' maximum fence height to 6'
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information available prior to the public hear, the staff recommends the Board
approve the variances as presented, subject to the fence being removed when the permanent playground is installed.
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
The proposed variance is to install a fence in order to ensure the safety and welfare of the
daycare children.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
Because the fence is located behind the front facade of the adjacent house and in a manner
consistent with the residential character of the area, surrounding property values should not
be adversely impacted. The proposed use is temporary and can be removed after the
permanent playground is constructed.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Ordinance would prohibit the installation of the fence to secure the
play area.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
Because the fence is located behind the front lot line of the adjacent house and is only
needed for a temporary enclosure of a play area, the variance requested is the minimum
necessary to meet the licensing requirements.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The need for the variance to allow a temporary playground is the result of the project
contractors being behind schedule, thus not caused by the current or former owner.
Analysis: The proposed variance is to allow a temporary use of the property as a playground
for the daycare on the adjacent property. Because of licensing requirements, the fence must be
permanently affixed to the ground.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hear, the staff
recommends the Board approve the variances as presented, subject to the fence being
removed when the permanent playground is installed.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 1430 MISHAWAKA AVE
Owner: JAIME DIAZ
Project Summary
Operation of an automotive repair shop
Requested Action
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Variance(s): 1) to allow parking in the established front/corner yard
2) from the 5' minimum parking area screening to none
3) from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve Variance #1 to allow parking in the established front/corner yard.
Staff recommends the Board deny Variance #2 from the minimum 5' parking area screening to none and Variance #3 from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none.
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
A Special Use may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon the
evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
Provided the proper landscaping and screening are provided, the proposed use should not
be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the community. The
site development standards in the Ordinance are established to limit potentially negative
impacts on the surrounding properties.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Mishawaka Avenue is a long established mixed use corridor. The building was constructed
in 1930 to accommodate an automotive repair use, the approval of the Special Exception
should not injure or adversely affect the use of adjacent area, provided the appropriate
landscaping and buffering is installed.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
The original development of this property was for vehicle repair. The NC Neighborhood
Center District allows this as a Special Exception in order to evaluate the appropriateness in
specific areas. At this location, the reactivation of the vacant building to its original use is
consistent with the character of the district and surrounding area.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The plan is consistent with City Plan (2006) Objective LU 2: Stimulate the rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse of the property in the city
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval of Variance #1 should not be injurious to the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community. This variance allows for the building to be used for its original
intent. To help mitigate any potential impact on the general community, proper parking area
screening and site landscaping should be upheld.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance should not
be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The site has existed in this layout for almost
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
100 years. While parking in the established front/corner yard is not preferred, the proper
parking area screening and site landscaping should reduce any negative impact on the
surrounding properties use and value.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would require the building to be demolished and
relocated in order to allow access and parking in a different configuration. The addition of
landscaping, however, could easily be accomplished.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance for parking location is the minimum necessary to operate the intended use in a
reasonable manner. Though parking is not required, providing some off-street parking would
be practical for the business. There is no practical difficulty for the requested landscaping
variances, so it is not the minimum necessary.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
This site has been in this configuration for almost 100 years. The Zoning regulations at the
time did not prohibit parking in the front yard. Variance #1 is not correcting a hardship
caused by the current owner. There are remedies that would allow the petitioner to install
the proper landscaping.
Analysis: The original intent of the building was for an automotive repair shop, though the
Neighborhood Center Zoning District outlines pedestrian orientated development, the use of
Vehicle Service, Minor is an allowed Special Exception in the district for such instances.
Because the proposed use is consistent with the original use it is within the character of the
district and surrounding area.
The site contains no practical difficulties and it would not affect the usability of the site to install
code compliant landscaping. However the current layout of the parking area, if brought into
conformance would hinder the usability and reactivation of the building.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff
recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve Variance #1 to allow parking in the
established front/corner yard. Staff recommends the Board deny Variance #2 from the minimum
5' parking area screening to none and Variance #3 from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none.
Analysis & Recommendation
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 223 N. LAFAYETTE BLVD
Owner: SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE % MARK HOCKER, Randy Moore
Project Summary
Request a Special Exception to allow for automotive detailing services
Requested Action
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Variance(s): 1) from the 60% minimum transparency to 5%
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the Board send
the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation and approve the variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
A Special Use may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon the
evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
The proposed use should not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community
moral standards, convenience or general welfare. The building has been designed for
automotive services for several decades. All the vehicle service activities occur within the
fully enclosed building. There are not hazardous materials being used or fumes created by
this particular automotive service.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Since all the vehicle service activities occur with the fully enclosed building, approval of the
Special Exception should not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
The Downtown Zoning District encourages active building frontages at or close to the
sidewalk. Although it would be preferred to have a service door with higher level
transparency and more windows along the street frontage, the practice of having the door
open during normal business hours provides an active frontage encouraged in the district.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The petition is consistent with City Plan (2006) Objective ED1: Stimulate the rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse of property in the City.
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval of the variance should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community. The variance allows for the building to be reused as an
active business in the core of the City.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
The reduced transparency should not adversely affect the use and value of adjacent
properties. The building has existed with the current level of transparency for over 2
decades. While we would encourage the property owner to improve the overall transparency
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
for the building frontage, the buildings in the surrounding area where all built with roughly
the same amount of transparency.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would require an extensive remodel of the front of
the building in order for this business to operate the vehicle service use. The building has
been used for automotive purposes in the past and is well suited for the reuse in this
manner. While the building owner is strongly encouraged to make improvements to the
facade with additional transparency, the tenant's operations happen completely inside the
building. There are limited uses which would be able to utilize this space without a special
exception. If the special exception wasn't needed, the building improvements would not be
required.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance requested is the minimum necessary to operate in a reasonable manner. The
business owner operates with the overhead door open during business owners. While there
is not a window installed, this does create the active store front and interaction with the
street that is intended by the minimum transparency requirements.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The building has not undergone any modifications to the facade in nearly two decades,
therefore, the hardship was not created by the current property owner.
Analysis: The proposed use as a vehicle service center, namely car detailing, is a desirable
reuse of a building that has existed for 100 years. Because the use requires a special exception,
the building is required to be brought to current standards. To fully restored the facade of the
building would be a large undertaking. The petitioner is meeting the intent of the ordinance by
ensuring the existing windows are not covered and operating with the overhead door open
during the day, which creates the vibrancy expected in a downtown location.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, staff
recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation and approve the variance as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0124-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 344 BERCLIFF DR
Owner: VICKY L HOLAWAY
Project Summary
Privacy fence around backyard
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the 3' maximum fence height in the established front/corner yard to 8'
2) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established rear yard to 8'
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board deny the variance from the 6' maximum fence height to 8' in the established rear yard. The Staff recommends the Board approve the variance from the 3' maximum fence height to 6', subject to
being limited to the eastern 90' of the property.
Staff Report – BZA#0124-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0124-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
A fence taller than what is allowed and within an established front or corner yard may be
injurious to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. A fence at that height in
that location obstructs the visibility from the drive immediately to the east.
(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
The use or value of adjacent properties should not be adversely affected by allowing a 6'
fence in the established corner yard. However an 8' fence in not appropriate for a residential
property and could affect value of adjacent properties.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
The property is unique in that it is a corner lot located on a 5 lane road, adjacent to
commercial properties, without direct access to McKinley. In addition, there are no sidewalks
along this side of McKinley, and unlikely to be one for quite some time. Most other
properties adjacent to McKinley are double frontage lots, which allow for one side to be
declared a rear yard. Strict application of the fence height limitations in the established
corner yard creates a practical difficulty in the use of this property. However, there is no
practical difficulty to warrant the additional height in the established rear yard.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance requested is not the minimum necessary. If the variance is granted to allow a
fence taller than 3' in the established corner yard, it should be limited to a height not to
exceed 6' and should be location that is the minimum necessary.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The location of the property in relation to the adjacent development was not created by the
current or former property owner.
Analysis: The fact that this is a corner property on a heavily traveled 5 lane road does create
some practical difficulty for the property. Ideally the fence would be located a minimum of 5'
from the property line to allow additional line of sight from the driveway to the east. However the
existing concrete drive would make that difficult. By limiting the location of the 6' fence to the
eastern 90', it allows for the majority of the effective rear yard of the property, up to the point
where the concrete turnaround stops, to be screened in a manner consistent with an
established rear yard.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0124-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the
Staff recommends the Board deny the variance from the 6' maximum fence height to 8' in the
established rear yard. The Staff recommends the Board approve the variance from the 3'
maximum fence height to 6', subject to being limited to the eastern 90' of the property.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0125-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 1908 CALVERT ST
Owner: SUSAN MWANGI UND 1/2 INT AND ANDREW MWANGI UND 1/2 INT
Project Summary
A Special Exception to allow a two family dwelling
Requested Action
Special Exception: Dwelling, 2 units
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board send the petition to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0125-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0125-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
A Special Use may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon the
evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
The proposed use should not be injurious to the public health, safety morals or general
welfare of the community. The general welfare and stability of the community could benefit
from the increased variety of housing types and reactivating a currently vacant building will
add more residents which can increase the safety of the community as well.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Adding an additional unit to an existing residential dwelling should not injure or adversely
affect the use or value of the adjacent area or property values, provided the current
residential character is maintained. Renovation of the building should strengthen nearby
property values and prevent the building from being demolished. The proposed site plan
shows no changes to the exterior of the building, preserving the single unit appearance.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
This two unit dwelling will be consistent with the character of the district and neighborhood in
both use and style of construction.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The petition is consistent with the City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan (2006)
Objective H1.1: Encourage residential developments to contain a mix of housing types,
densities, price ranges, and amenities.
Analysis: The proposed construction of a two unit dwelling will further compliment the existing
housing stock in the surrounding area, as well as providing more diverse housing types for
residents. The conversion and rehab of a currently vacant one unit dwelling to a two unit
dwelling will be visually indistinguishable from nearby one unit dwellings. The petitioner is
proposing no significant changes to the exterior of the building, leaving the option to revert back
to a single unit dwelling in the future.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board send the petition to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0121-22 August 1, 2022
Property Information
Location: 914 SHERMAN AVE
Owner: NEAR NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD INC
Project Summary
A proposal for development of new construction of a side-by-side duplex as part of a new infill
development in the near northwest neighborhood.
Requested Action
Special Exception: Dwelling, 2 Units
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
send the petition to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0121-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0121-22 August 1, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
A Special Use may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon the
evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
Approval of the Special Exception should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community. The scale of the proposed duplex is comparable to a
single dwelling home and will still be a residential use. Reactivating a vacant lot will provide
more residents to the neighborhood which will increase safety and the general welfare of the
community.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Adding a duplex on a currently vacant lot should not injure or adversely affect the use or
value of the adjacent properties. The addition of the duplex will further the work being done
in the neighborhood to provide more residential opportunities. New construction that fits the
scale of the current residential properties should strengthen nearby property values.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
The current context of the neighborhood provides a mix of single family homes, duplexes
and small commercial properties along Portage Ave. This duplex will be consistent with the
character of the district and neighborhood in both uses and style of construction.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends "Encourage residential developments to contain a
mix of housing types, densities, price ranges, and amenities. (Policy H1.1) This proposed
duplex is in line with the recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan by helping establish
a mix of housing types.
Analysis: The proposed construction of a two-unit dwelling will further complement the wide
range of development occurring in the Near Northwest Neighborhood (NNN). The proposed
duplex will compliment the surrounding neighborhood efforts by reactivating a vacant lot.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board send the petition to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception