Could all stand and
recite the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Katie Glenn.
>> Present.
>> Amanda Miller.
Josh Fador.
>> Present.
>> Jim Hurst.
>> Present.
>> Josh Martin.
>> Present.
>> Four present, we have a quorum.
Okay, and before I jump into the
agenda, I see a number of people in the
audience.
Uh if you wish to speak tonight, we ask
that you sign up. If you haven't signed
up, I can make these papers available to
you again, but if you would please do so
here in the next few moments.
Um
Uh next item on the agenda is the
approval of the April 6th uh
meeting minutes.
Any changes to the minutes or can I have
a motion to approve it?
>> So moved.
>> A second?
>> I'll second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
» Uh there are no continuances or
withdrawal requests. There is no new
Excuse me, no continued business.
So we are on to new business. I will
call
uh
docket 202604
uh DSV
uh development standards variance
pursuant to exhibit five development
standards matrix to encroach into the
rear yard setback for the construction
of a patio on lot V4 in section nine of
the Holiday Farms PUD.
Uh Mr. Smith, are you taking this?
>> Yes, sir.
Uh
so yeah, you summarized the project.
This is in the Holiday Farms PUD.
Uh the petitioner
uh on this particular lot there is a
50-ft rear yard uh platted building
line.
Um which is unique.
The petitioner is requesting, if you
look at the site plan,
uh he is requesting to encroach 3 ft
um into the 50-ft building setback line.
Uh it's 3 ft by 22 ft, which is a total
of 66 sq ft. If the petitioner which
wishes to move forward with his project,
um the variance either needs to be
granted or he'll have to remove that
portion of his patio.
Um and I've provided on page four
of the staff report, you can see um two
pictures. One is the recorded plat. I've
highlighted, you'll see the 50-ft
building setback line.
Um and you'll note the second picture is
the site plan that was submitted, and
you'll see the patio as it relates to
that 50-ft setback line, the 3-ft
encroachment, uh the 22 ft in width.
The
standards for unnecessary hard or for uh
the granting of a development standard
variance, there's three standards. One,
the grant will not be injurious to
public health and safety.
Two, the granting of this request will
not have an adverse impact in the use or
value of adjacent properties. And three,
uh strict application of the zoning
ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship. Uh just to read staff's
position for the record, um item one,
the grant will not be injurious to
public health and safety. Staff, uh we
agree with the petitioner, uh except for
the rear yard setback, the proposal
meets all other applicable development
standards, uh and it still provides a 47
rear yard setback, which is
significantly larger than all other
residential rear yard setback
requirements in our zoning ordinance.
Uh it does not encroach into the 30-ft
or 35-ft drainage easement or the 15-ft
green belt. Um and you can see that on
the uh again on page four of the
recorded plat. Additionally, as part of
the approval process, the petitioner is
required to receive approval of uh what
we call an IOP, an improvement location
permit, from the town um and approval
from their HOA prior to construction,
both of which are intended to ensure the
project is not injurious to public
health and safety.
Uh public noticing was also completed
and at the time of this writing, we were
not aware and did not receive any
concerns or complaints from the public.
Uh so for this reason or for these
reasons, we believe this criteria was
met.
Item number two, uh the use or value of
the area adjacent uh to the property
included in this variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse
manner. Uh once again, staff agrees with
the petitioner. Uh if the request is
granted, the petitioner is still
maintaining a 47-ft rear yard setback.
Uh again, significantly larger than all
other residential zoning classifications
in our zoning ordinance.
Uh we believe this patio adds value to
the site. Uh adjoining properties are
not anticipated to be adversely
impacted. Uh additional Additionally,
surrounding properties again were
notified. Um
staff as of this writing has not
received any concerns from neighbors or
the public. So barring objections being
raised during the public hearing, uh we
believe this criterion was met as well.
The final one, uh strict application
Item number three, strict application of
the zoning ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship in the use of the
property. As staff, we disagree with the
petitioner on this criteria.
Um
we define unnecessary hardship as the
following: All relevant factors, when
taken together, indicate that the land
involved cannot yield a reasonable
return because of unique circumstances.
A claim of unnecessary hardship
justifying the grant of a variance
cannot be based on self-created
conditions. A mere showing of economic
loss is not sufficient.
Summarizing, in this case, we believe
the subject property already yields a
reasonable return supporting a 5,444
square foot residence. Uh in staff's
opinion, the desire for additional
outdoor space does not rise to
unnecessary hardship. Uh we could not
identify unique circumstances or
conditions on this site such as an
easement or the topography of the land
uh that would support granting a
variance. Um additionally, the secondary
plat for section 9 of Holiday Farms was
recorded in September 2023. Um the owner
did have access to this information
prior to purchasing the property and
designing their home. Despite having
access to this information, they moved
forward with the current proposal
ultimately building the patio without a
permit and encroaching 3 ft over the
building line. Um in staff's opinion,
this is a self-created hardship. For
these reasons, uh we believe this
criterion was not met.
Um summarizing, you have to answer in
the affirmative all three. Uh
we could not get there on item number
three. So, based on that, we have an
unfavorable staff recommendation uh of
the requested variance to encroach 3 ft
into the 50-ft rear yard setback for the
patio.
We've provided a sample motion
um
at the last page of the staff report.
I'm happy to answer any questions you
have. Otherwise, I'll turn it back to
you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Smith. Um members of the
BZA, do you have any questions for
staff?
>> Not at this time, I don't know.
>> Okay, I would invite the petitioner to
approach the uh
podium, state your name and your
address.
» I yeah, I'm Pete Gray. Um uh owner of
Executive Homes.
Uh 1010 Third Avenue Southwest in Carmel
is our address.
Um appreciate your time today. Um
I'm kind of new at this. The last time I
did a one of these things was for a barn
I was building in Carmel and that's been
25 years ago. So, um I I spent a little
bit of time. I understood that there was
a a similar request for an encroachment
that was presented to this board in
January.
Um
so, I kind of followed the you know,
kind of the the guideline and criteria
that they went through and first of all,
the gentleman was very complimentary of
Jonathan and his help and I will
continue to I'll go along with that as
well, very helpful. I appreciate the um
all the assistance, but um I guess from
the from the standpoint um the best I
can do is kind of compare what was
approved in January with what I'm hoping
to get approved this evening and see if
uh see if we can go along with that, but
um
so, I've I as Jonathan mentioned, we
have a 50-ft rear building setback line
on that property, which
uh that that setback isn't even listed
in the in the document with the PUD. The biggest setback line they even
reference is a 30-ft building setback
line. So, it's it's a pretty
extraordinary setback line to begin
with. Um
and uh I'm requesting a 3-ft
encroachment into that that 50-ft uh
BSL.
Um the uh and as a kind of a comparison,
the one that was approved back in
January, uh they were were requesting a
10-ft
um
encroachment um that would take that
really all the way back to the 20-ft
building setback line. So,
relatively insignificant amount in
comparison anyway.
Um
Both properties are unique in that
neither one of them back up to any uh
home sites. So, they were had back up to
a uh property to the north that's not
developed and this backed up to uh
commercial space. So,
uh
one of the considerations at that at
that approval was that it did not back
up to another home.
Um I'm requesting a 3-ft encroachment
with 66 sq ft of patio.
Um
Uh
encroaching, the one that was approved
back in January was a 295 sq ft patio
with 10-ft encroachment. So, again,
significantly less of of an encroachment
than than was was previously approved.
Um and the you know, I still I'll I'll
retain another 12 ft between
even this with this 3-ft encroachment,
I'm still 12 ft away from a 35-ft
drainage easement. Um and the other one
that was approved uh was adjacent to and
on top of a 20-ft drainage and utility
easement. So, again, a little bit more
space.
Um and I thought it was interesting. Um
both both requests, my client's
Brazilian. They have some pretty unique
cooking requirements and the gentleman
that got approved um also had some
cultural requirements that they they do
a lot of outdoor outdoor cooking to uh
in their
at least they prefer doing it that way,
but
uh and then as Jonathan mentioned, that
both of those pro you know, projects had
building setback lines that exceed
Zionsville's typical requirement. Um I
think that's 20 ft.
The one that was approved in January had
a 30-ft BSL and mine's a 50-ft BSL. So,
we're we're well within what Zionsville
typically looks for. Um and then I was
going to make a comment um
that house the footprint of that house
is is 2,841 sq ft. It's a It's a
relatively small three-bedroom ranch
with a fin with you know, a partially
finished basement. Um and the footprint
of that house is literally within an
inch and a half of the maximum width I
could build on that lot and an inch and
a half of the maximum depth I could
build on that lot. And so, the the what
was what's remaining is a small I'm
going to call it offset in the in that
building that's on the north
northeast corner.
Um which, you know, obviously when
you're that close to all those property
lines, there's not a whole lot left to work with. So, um they you know, the grilling area is kind of tucked into
a a corner of the home that's created on
the northeast uh northeast side. So,
um but again, we're you know, I'm border
to border. I'm within an inch and a half
each direction of the maximum um
footprint I could build on that both
front to back and side to side.
Um
And then, as as Jonathan mentioned,
building you know, the the the standard
one and two are are fairly easy to meet.
Um it's you know,
standard number three, you know, the
unnecessary hardship standard. Um I
think it's kind of hard to argue that
anyone who lives in Holiday Farms has
very many unnecessary hardships. That's
a beautiful community and and uh
there's not a whole lot of unnecessary
hardship uh you you you see as you go
through there.
Um but anyway, um it's it's one of those
things uh I have a letter I think
Jonathan I sent a copy to him. I have a
letter from uh Hanky Development uh
encouraging you to approve the 3-ft
encroachment. Um
and uh I guess that's what I'm asking
for this evening.
» Thank you. Uh before I invite uh
questions from my fellow commission
members, I'll just note that each zoning
appeal stands on its own.
>> Of course, I understand that.
>> And uh so, just want to put that on the
record.
>> I get I've just I'm kind of new at this,
so I just I knew that one was approved,
so I just kind of followed the template
that was there.
>> I understand your thinking, but just so that you and everyone know,
>> Fully understand.
>> each one of these individually.
>> Fully understood.
>> Uh do we have any
questions for the petitioner at this
time?
>> Has the patio already been built or
>> Yeah, my my client worked directly with
Indy Grills on the design. So, yeah, it
that it and I take responsibility for
it. It got beyond behind, you know, kind
of in front of us on it. But, yeah, it's
built.
>> Like my other question was to the north
of the setback, is that residential area
or is that
>> Um, it's I think it's I think it's R2.
It's a huge huge lot with a big house on
it. It's probably a 10 or 12 and it's a
huge parcel. Jonathan, you can probably
pull that up, Jonathan, but
>> It's R2.
>> Yeah.
» They've had a driveway.
>> Yeah, but
>> Okay.
» Are you pulling that up, Jonathan? So
>> I I'm pulling it up right now. Um,
if you could switch to the mouse mouse
There you go. It just takes a second for
all my
I have too many layers turned on my GIS.
» Well, Jonathan, even it might be helpful
to the commission as a whole to
um
uh even if you went to Google Maps, it
might show us uh
>> Here Here's the Here's the parcel. It is
a large parcel. It's zoned R2.
Um, residential use.
A a relatively larger home with
associated accessory structures.
Looks like a barn or a pole barn or
something like that.
» Would anybody have any further questions
for the petitioner?
>> Just a clarification. You said this
house is 2,800 square feet.
>> 20
8 Let me check my math here. 2,841
I think is what Yeah, 2,841 square foot
uh
living space on the It's a ranch style
plan. So, it's only got one story.
>> It's a three-bedroom
standard three-bedroom,
It's got part of the basement's finished
off with some additional living space,
but that's that the footprint of the
main floor is 2841.
Uh
I could have stretched it an inch and a
half each direction, but it didn't pick
me up very much. So
Yeah, it's and it it is interesting. I
mean, when I sit down with my design
team, you know, we're you know, the you
want you want to utilize everything you
can on those lots and uh
um so I you know, when when we designed
it was very intentional that we were we
were tight to both front building
setback, you know, with the home and
side building setback. So, yep.
Yes.
That's all I got so far.
Jonathan, I don't know if anyone signed
up to speak
for this one or if there's anyone
online. It looks like there may be
someone. Did you sign up, sir? Okay. Um
sir, if you'd take a seat for a moment,
we're going to invite this gentleman.
>> Sure.
Thank you.
» Mr. Colepepper, I presume?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. If you'd state your name and your
address.
>> Uh yes, my name is William Colepepper
and and I own the the property that you
were just now referencing at 3402 South
US 421.
Uh my first time in a meeting like this,
so I just received a certified letter.
Um I don't know if it's possible for you
to pull up a more recent Google uh just
the Google Map image of the property,
but it it is a completed home. There are
two structures on it. Uh there's a
10,000 square foot main house and a
10,000 square foot hospitality house. Uh
it's a significant property. We've made
a significant investment in
and I know that um
the builder
worked with Hanky and Holiday Farms, you
know, intentionally to create that 50-ft
setback in order to protect the value of
our property. I understand that
something has already been built. My
concern is there about 12 or 14
properties in Holiday Farms that their
backyard goes into our property and the
one that's being discussed today
requesting the setback as you can see is
right in the middle of my front yard.
And I'm not sure how these things work,
but I don't understand if if if a
an exception is created for this
property, is that just one domino in the
middle that falls for the rest of all
the other properties or will other
individuals ask for 3 ft plus another 10
ft or want to build a pool and and I'm
trying to to understand. So, I guess as I stand here today, I'm I'm not in
favor of the request. I'd like to ask
for a continuance to just to have time
to consult professionals to understand
what this means to the entirety of my
property. And and perhaps one question
you guys can answer is if a variance was allowed for for this
property could that be the end of it?
And and you know, with this 3 ft because
I understand it's only 66 or whatever
however many feet that was described,
but
there's 14 other homes there that likely
will want the exact same thing or more
and I'm I'm trying to understand that.
So, I'm not in favor and and would like
to request a continuance to learn more.
>> Thank you, Mr. Colepepper. I think I can
answer your narrow question the same way
I addressed the other gentleman. We take
each petition on its own merits.
And so, whether there was an approval or
a denial tonight does not dictate what
might happen next time if a variance
request were to come in front of us. And
that that's really all the visibility I
can get at give to that.
>> Okay, well that that um thank you.
Appreciate that.
>> No, thank you.
» Missioners?
>> Yeah, did you have somebody online?
>> Oh, I'm so did we have anybody online?
Thank you. Sorry. Okay.
>> I thought you said you did.
>> Okay, well that Mr. Colepepper is the
only one that signed up. No one is
online, so I will close the public
comment at 6:53
uh and invite commissioner discussion.
Or excuse me, forgive me. I should give
uh
the petitioner a chance to
answer anything that was raised during
the remonstration if he wishes.
» I get I guess my my only comment would
be and um
it is apparently some a different
procedure not right wrong or indifferent
but different. Um I've built 15 or 16
homes in Holiday Farms. I've never had a
request to get a permit for a patio.
I've built for at least 15 in Pemberton.
Never had to request to get a permit for
a patio. So I at at some point there I think there's been perhaps a
change in procedure or requirements or
something.
Um and so again I I guess that my only
point being doesn't make it right or
wrong but I just you know it's it's from
the standpoint of you know I'm not a
you know I'm not riding riding the range
wild out there. It's something that
we've never we've never
been ever asked for you know a perm an ILP permit for for a patio.
And I've been in both of those
communities I was in the 99 Home A Rama
at Pemberton and the two the excuse me
the 2019 Home A Rama in Pemberton and
the 2020 Home A Rama in Holiday Farms.
So I I've been at both communities since
the inception and and have never been
even requested to get an ILP for a
patio. So, but again, it's we we really do try
to follow the rules. I just it's just
kind of a new one for me anyway.
>> Thank you.
I would respond at least partially to
that and that is you may still not be
required to get a permit for a patio,
but that there is still a setback
requirement.
>> Oh, I understand No, I I'm not I'm not
trying to
>> Okay.
>> I'm not trying to blend the two.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> It's something that you know, it's you
know, it the the the permit part of it's
just unique or something we're going to
have to get used to I think.
>> Okay.
>> And the and the the part that's
interesting is and so many times when
you're when you're at the design stage
with the client, you know, I they don't
know what they want. They know they want
something, but you know, they want to
stand in their house and look out the
backyard and go, "Gosh, I think my patio
would work here or here or here." So, um
sometimes it's a little premature to try
to identify on a piece of paper a plot a
plan where the best place for a patio is
until the client has a chance to to see
it from the you know, from the house.
>> Looks like there's another porch at
least probably built.
>> I'm sorry.
>> There's another porch or first porch
perhaps already built as well.
>> It has a lanai.
>> Okay. Okay.
Um so, then that's built at grade?
>> I'm sorry.
>> The porch is built at grade. It's not
elevated or is it?
>> The the lanai is probably
4 ft or so above grade and then there's
a
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, that that lot has quite a
>> Okay.
>> it from the back which kind of creates
another bit of a challenge as well.
>> Okay. And then the new porch or the the
smaller one that's the subject tonight,
is that also built at grade or is that
also elevated?
>> That's a
>> Okay.
>> it's it's just Yeah, it's
There's some differentiation there that
again, the lanai is probably 4 ft above
grade and then has steps going down to
meet grade for the for the patio.
>> Okay.
>> Or really it's a grilling station.
>> All right. Thank you.
Mhm. Thank you, Mr. Dale.
I should note, and Mr. Dale and Mr.
Smith, correct me, but since we are
short a commissioner tonight,
it still would take three votes for an
approval.
So, a tie is actually a denial. Is that
correct?
>> A tie is a continuance. It's no It's no
>> Okay, it's no action.
>> Yeah, no action.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you for
that clarification, just so that
everyone in the room understands that.
Um
I invite any discussion.
Oh, forgive me.
Jonathan,
Amanda texted that she has tried to join
remotely, wasn't able to get in. So, I
don't know if somebody could watch out.
It probably is a little situational for
her, but if somebody could watch out
as she's trying to join.
» I would
point to IT in the back. Do you have
access to the the Zoom link?
>> I'm sorry, what was the question?
>> Uh we have a board member who's trying
to join remotely.
Um and somebody needs to allow her into
the Zoom link.
I believe that link was created by IT.
>> Yes, I will work on that.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> And I
um
she may have moved on, and I'll text her
that you're on the lookout for her uh in a moment here.
Uh all right, sorry for the
interruptions, please.
>> I'm curious how many other homes are
built
adjacent to this house that that may
want to build outdoor, or are they
already completed? Was this the last
house on the road to be built?
>> I don't know the answer to that.
Jonathan, do you know?
>> Um I don't know the exact I
>> I don't know the exact answer. No, there
are there are more vacant lots along
that the north side of Dartmoor. Um
there's
four or five built maybe. I got one,
two, three, four. I I can see four in my
head, so there's four or five anyway
that are built along the north side of
Dartmoor there.
But maybe more, but I can remember that
many.
» So, Mr. Culpepper reference you want to
continuance on this to consult with
someone. Is that something you would
oppose?
>> No, that's fine. I
» Question, is this holding up the C of O?
>> I don't believe so.
>> Okay.
>> Um
We We We got a conditional C of O for
landscaping cuz they closed when it was
not landscaped. It's It is now
landscaped and I believe we had a an
inspection maybe even today.
Um landscaping is complete, but um
you know, so I I needed I think I had a
May 15th deadline to get um
you know, for that for the final C of O
for landscaping, so we're
We got it done and it's inspected. I
don't know if there's any comments or
not.
>> Um okay. I I just don't want to create a
situation where you get past the May the
May uh your deadline in May. And if this
is continued, it'll be continued past
that May deadline.
And so
>> for what?
>> You said landscaping, I believe.
>> Yeah, it's landscaped.
>> This will be continued to June 3rd. So,
if you have a deadline that you have to
meet by May and this plays a role
in that
>> I That's beyond me, Jonathan. I I don't
know how that how all that's related to
be candid with you. I know that on the inspection report, the only thing
that was noted was, you know,
landscaping, but I don't know the internal
>> Is the family living there?
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Okay, that's all I care about. I don't
want to keep a family from moving into
their home
>> no, no, no, no. I got conditional. See, the house was
>> Yeah. was approved fully except for
landscaping and that was simply because
it was just a mud pile out there. So,
yeah, the they moved in with mud, now they've
got grass. So, they're all they're all
good to go.
>> And this is an an open patio. It won't
be enclosed or covered. Is that correct?
>> Okay.
In the petitioner's narrative, they
mentioned that they could not find
anywhere in the Holiday Farms PUD
where this 50-ft setback was mentioned.
I went back to look myself. I didn't see
anywhere as well where I think most I
saw was maybe a 35-ft setback.
So, can you explain to me the evolution
of this setback? Did this occur during
the platting?
>> That's correct. So, the the previous
gentleman who lives behind this parcel
that just spoke kind of shed light as to
the creation of this. So,
um when the PUD is drafted and adopted,
approved, um there was development
standards.
Um the one in question is the rear yard
setback, correct?
Um
the minimum for the Holiday Farms PUD is
35-ft, right? And historically,
developers
reflect the minimum, right? You want to
have the most buildable area, the least
impact, right? And so, they'll they'll
reflect that. Um prior to this meeting,
I tried to find the research as to why
this developer
would knowing that it's a 35-ft, go
above and beyond and be like, "I don't
want to do 35-ft. I want to make it 50."
And I was trying to find that
conversation that it occurred. I
couldn't find it until this gentleman
just spoke and his
testimony, his his his speech provided
light as to why that was done. It was
done so that this gentleman's land in
the back between him and the developer,
he has that additional buffer. Um there
is nothing in
our zoning standards that prohibits
developers
from going and doing above and beyond
the minimum, right? What we say is if
you're going to do that, you have to
plat it.
And the number that's on the plat that's
recorded, that's what we're going to
hold you to. So you don't have to put
50,
but if you put 50, you understand
>> Mhm.
>> that that's what we're holding you to,
not 35. That's what occurred.
» Without digging completely through the
Holiday Farms uh subdivision, this is
the only 50-ft setback in the for the
most part in the entire project. So
there's clearly what's concerned
for the joining landowner
is why this 50-ft building setback. Cuz
like I said, I I read that letter and
then I went back and read through the
PUD and there was the minimums and
traditionally developers are going to
build where we let them build. So
that helps me shed some light onto what
where that building setback line came
from.
>> I guess the only thing I would add to
that, and Jonathan, you you'd sent this
to me and I happen to bring it with me.
Um the actual matrix that they have, um
minimum rear setback lines
range from 10 ft in section H, I, J, and
G
uh going to 25 ft in E and F and 30 ft
in A through ABCD. So it's that, you
know, and again, the the the 50 ft is
not even mentioned on this on this
matrix, but but they apparently they the
rear building setback line can be as
little as 10 ft. I don't know if they
ever did that or not, but
Yeah, but you you provided me that
matrix back
>> But so it But it was done during the
platting process.
>> Yeah, yeah, so
>> Well, well, the planning commission
approved the plat, primary plat. It was
on that primary plat that we approved.
>> Yeah, um that's exactly right. So, the concern
there there's two things. One, the
concern should have been raised at the
platting plan commission stage about why
are you platting such a large
in excess of the minimum
line. Um
I'm I'm not not sure if that question
was asked or not, but
um
it was clearly okay because it was
approved, right? Um
so so here we are. And the other thing
would be you can always amend the plat.
Um and despite
several, you know, not to jump off into
the weeds on that, but um despite
numerous petitions, we've we've elected
not to amend the plat.
So.
» And just when when folks buy these lots,
they get a copy of the plat. They know
this was I mean, they're not I guess
they're not buying the lots prior to the
platting being done. They're aware of
this primary this 50-ft building setback
line when they purchase lots. Just It's
the same question I bring up every time.
>> Yeah, the the recording of the plat at
the county is what actually creates the
square you'll see on my GIS map. So, um
there's nothing to buy until it's
recorded.
» So, the homeowner and the home builder
were aware of the 50-ft setback.
>> I don't want to speak to what they're
aware to. I just can speak to what was
available to them.
Um I don't know if they I I don't want
to speak to the research or the the
level of of research they did. So, I
don't want to say that they were or were
not aware, but um
it was available. It was recorded.
Um
uh they had access to it if they wished
to look at it.
>> It is customary during I think the the
closing for the the buyer to get a copy
of the survey.
Um which would show these building
lines. Now, as to whether they read them
or not, you know, at the closings,
um that that's another thing, but that
is standard practice to include that
information.
>> And you would agree that they would not
have needed to get a permit to build a
patio.
>> I'm not sure what our process is in this
case, too.
For a patio.
>> So, there there's a a multi-pointed conversation,
right? And I'll I'll I'm going to do my
best to summarize it. Um
you've always needed a permit to get a
pad or a yeah, a permit for patios. That
That's That's been a policy that's not
changed, right?
Um
Holiday Farms is unique in that
most of the people that you see that
have existing patios and things of that
nature,
the approvals were uh
I'm going to say two-phased, right?
Phase one, they came through and got a
building permit for the house and only
the house. And if you look at the
permits for these houses, you'll notice
that the exterior features. Think of
landscaping, think of patios, things of
that nature. The exterior features are
not included in the submittal for the
construction of the house. So, the house
typically comes through as one permit,
phase one. Once the house is built or is
in the process of being built, the
owners are consulting with
Indy Grills or some other other
contractor to essentially put the
external components to the house, right?
So, now we have phase two. Um and
typically these types of issues are only
caught
um if the external features of the house
are under construction at the time of
final inspection.
So,
our inspectors are going out there and
they're only looking at the plans that
were submitted as part of the house.
And if it goes through the entire
process and our inspectors look at the
house plans, look at the house, that's
what was built, they will issue the CFO,
they'll give the final inspection,
and then as staff, we're done at that
site.
Now, transition to the second component.
Things that are built without permits,
things that are built after the final
inspection, right? Things that may or
may not have been
issued permits.
We as a office are a complaint-driven
code enforcement.
What that means is we try to be lenient,
we try to give grace, we understand that
regular Joes don't know all the building
codes or all the zoning regulations.
So, what's happened
is historically
most people haven't asked. They build
their house, they get their final CFO,
the family moves in,
suddenly they want a nice outdoor lawn
or patio, and they do it with a
contractor that's not included on the
permit, right? So, as staff, we have no
idea this is even occurring until
somebody comes in and asks permission to
do something,
at which point we discover that there's
17 other people in Holiday Farms that
have things that were probably not
permitted.
But again, we're a complaint-driven
office as far as that's concerned. So,
that's how
you can end up in a situation where you
have homes being built
with external features.
Pick a feature, whether it's a patio or
an outdoor kitchen, whatever, and these
items are encroaching into setbacks or
possibly drainage easements, things of
that nature.
Um and they're there, and they're
existing, and you have petitioners who
are seeing these things, and they're
like, "Well, I just want what my
neighbor has."
Well, there's a chance your neighbor
didn't ask permission. There's a chance
your neighbor probably built in a
setback or an easement. And the reason
that it's not been an issue is because
we have not received a code enforcement
complaint. People in Holiday Farms tend
to
not turn their neighbors in, right?
Which is
their right to do. So, the only time we
enforce these things
is when we get a complaint.
I hope all of that said, that's how we
end up with these situations.
>> So, technically they should have gotten
a permit.
>> Yes.
>> Everyone should have.
>> Our department has never had a policy
where patios did not require permits.
It's just often times when they get
permits, they don't include the patios
on the plans that are submitted.
And we go through the entire process, we
issue the CFO, we do the final
inspection, the house matches the plans
we have, and then staff leaves. And we
have no reason to go back to that site.
And then after that point is when all
the landscaping and external features
tend to appear on houses, and um staff
has no involvement in it.
>> I guess my my comment to that though,
Jonathan, if if someone's adding
something after they take occupancy of
the home, that that could be very true.
Um I we we don't close houses without
patios. I mean, I
you know, it's you know, so you know, I
mean, I I guess that to to differentiate
between what you're what you're
describing and and what I'm describing,
you know, every house I've built in
Pemberton and every house I've built in
Holiday Farm, the the patio's been there
when we you know, cuz you know, we we
know we don't want to be trucking across
a you know, trying to get through a 5-ft
side yard to pour a concrete patio after
the house is built. So, we're we're
pouring patios
when we're doing driveways. So, I I'm
not going to say that people aren't
after the fact adding elements to their
property, but but I can say that the the
15 I've built in Pemberton and 15 I've
built in Holiday Farms.
Every patio that that we've installed
has been installed when that you know,
when the inspection's been done.
>> As part of the original permit for the
house?
>> I I assuming I I just I'd always assume
that because of those 30 jobs I've never
been asked for a separate permit. So,
again, I'm you know, again, I you know,
I've been I've owned the company 30
years. I don't want to claim ignorance
because that would be ignorant, but but
I I but I guess my point my point is
that um
we you know, if if that's if that's been
the procedure that that the 30 or so
I've built since, you know, 2019 just in
those two communities
that we've we've always had the patio
in. We we won't we can't
>> I I I don't think the petitioner is
self-reporting anything we need to do
code enforcement on.
You know, no, what I what I can say
we'll we'll bring it back to this
petition. What I can say is this
petition um you know
the the patio was not included
in the permit paperwork. It just wasn't.
So, that's what triggered the inspector
to notice it.
Um
you know
>> What's in front of us isn't a lack of
permit. What's in front of us is a
request for a variance setback on a
patio that is already built.
>> Yeah.
>> However it got there.
Um
and I'm just con- this has gone on for a
bit. So, I'm confirming my
understanding.
The setback as recorded on the plat is
>> Yes, sir.
>> And we have testimony tonight
uh is to perhaps the reason why is the
adjacent property owner had negotiated
that with the developer.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So, I view the state of affairs as
the remonstrator is said he's against
it, but he's willing to con-
uh consider he has asked us to consider
a continuance so he can think about it
more and its ramifications.
Um as I am on
darn near every setback variance, this
is something I would
be disinclined to allow.
Uh, having said that, um,
I invite a motion and the remonstrator
has even asked for a continuance and not
an actual vote tonight.
>> I'll I'm ready to make a motion.
Um,
uh, for a continuance actually.
Um, let me get to terminology so I sound
right.
I move the docket 202604-DSV
Development Centers variance to encroach
3 ft into the 50-ft rear yard setback for construction of a
patio at 10850
Dartmouth Court be continued to our June
3rd, 2026 BZA meeting.
>> I'll second it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Martin.
All in favor, say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed, same sign.
Thank you, Mr. Curdale.
Okay. Thank you. It's
Sorry, it has been continued to the next
meeting.
>> Okay. Thanks.
» Okay.
We will now move on to our next
petition, which is 202605
SE,
a special exception pursuant to section
194.07B2A
to provide for the use of manufacturing
soaps and detergents in the urban
heavy industrial I3 zoning district. Um,
Mr. Smith, I assume you're taking the
staff presentation.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Uh,
yeah, so this this property, 1073
Bennett Parkway, zoned I3, and what's
unique about this, uh, petition, um, or
actually really our zoning ordinance, is
even though what the petitioner is doing
would fall in the parameters of I2,
the language in our zoning ordinance
explicitly requires any I1 or I2 that
wants to operate in I3, it requires
those operations to receive special
exceptions
approval from the Board of Zoning
Appeals in order to operate.
That's a little unique, but that's
exactly what we're here to discuss.
Um
Again,
from a zoning standpoint, if you look at
our zoning ordinance, these
this operation would would classify as
manufacturing soaps and
detergents,
which is not explicitly permitted by
right in I3.
This is a multi-tenant building that was
built
in 2004. It's a 30,000 sq ft facility.
Um the petitioner has provided um if you
look at the exhibits, they've provided
exhibit nine specifically a business
description. Um they've provided a site
plan and surveys. If you look at these
exhibits,
to skip to
the staff analysis as far as the
comprehensive plan,
the comp plan supports office research
and technology in this area.
This designation is established to
promote the development of research
facilities, testing laboratories,
admin facilities, and other uses, which
is important in this case. Other uses
such as distribution and warehouse,
flex centers and light manufacturing
is generally free from ejectable
elements such as odor, dust, smoke, and
glare
um are also encouraged. So, in this
case, staff, when we see that, we see
what the petitioner is proposing and it
aligns with the comprehensive plan's
recommendation of light manufacturing or
assembly.
Um jumping to the second part
of our analysis, which is the zoning. Um
again, this is I3. It's a heavy
industrial zoning classification, uh
designed to accommodate heavy
manufacturing and processing facilities
that require substantial amount of
outdoor storage. Uh they require
extensive community facilities,
um access to what we call arterial
streets, which are our our main streets.
Permitted uses in this district have
excessive outdoor storage and service
areas. They generate heavy traffic. Um
the petitioner proposal is unlike the
heavy industrial land uses intended for
I3.
Uh the proposed use is not a heavy
manufacturing operation operation. Uh
it's more closely aligned with general
industrial land uses. Um the zoning
ordinance identifies the requested use
as I2, as previously stated. Uh the
proposal aligns more closely with I2
zoning districts uses. Um the request
for the special exception will allow
this to operate in I3.
Um
skipping through the other um
the other criteria as far as driveway
location, parking, um external features
such as the building character,
landscaping. Uh unless the petitioner
has changed their mind, I'm not aware of
any external features that will be
changing to the site um with the
exception of possible signage, right,
for their business.
Um
to the questions that we have to answer
the findings of fact um related to a
special exception, there are three that
we have to answer. Number one, the
proposed use will not be injurious to
public health and safety. Number two,
the proposed use will not injure or
adversely affect adjacent areas or
property values. And three, the proposed
use will be consistent with the
character of the district, land uses
authorized therein, and the town's comp
plan. Number one, staff agrees with the
petitioner on this criteria. Granting
this request will not be injurious to
public health and safety. From a use
standpoint, their proposal is less
impactful than other permitted more
intense uses, such as the manufacturing
of railroad equipment, farm machinery, or boiler tankers.
This building was designed with
manufacturing in mind,
uh meeting applicable building and fire
codes, and supporting adequate parking
and loading berths for truck deliveries.
Uh the petitioner also completed public
noticing. Uh as of this writing, we did
not receive any complaints or concerns
from the public. For these reason For
these reasons, we believe this criteria
number one was met. Uh criteria number
two, the proposed use will not injure or
adversely affect the adjacent area or
property values therein. Uh we agree
with the petitioner on this criteria.
If approved, the use would be confined
inside the existing building, utilizing
infrastructure already on site, such as
the loading berths and employee parking.
Uh the building was designed in 2004 to
meet development standards of an I3
heavy industrial use. Uh their proposal
is more consistent with permitted uses
in I2, which are less intense
uh than those allowed in I3.
Additionally, the property is surrounded
by other light distribution and medium
industrial businesses.
Given the existing buffer and the
landscaping already on site, adjoining
properties are not anticipated to be
adversely affected.
The petitioner completed public
noticing, and as again, as of this
writing, we did not receive any concerns
from the public. So, once again, barring
objections from the public being raised
tonight, uh we believe this criterion
was met.
Item number three, the proposed use will
be consistent with the character of the
district, land uses authorized therein,
and the town's comp plan.
Uh again, we agree with the petitioner.
The proposed use will be consistent with
the character of this district, land
uses authorized therein, and the comp
plan. Uh the character of I3 zoning
district encourages manufacturing, which
is exactly what the petitioner is
proposing.
Their proposed operation is similar to
the other manufacturings manufacturing
operations in the area, such as
Tri-Phase Technologies and Fanimation
Fan, which is located north and east of this site.
Uh the comprehensive plan
designates this area as an office,
research, and technology industrial,
which is allowed which allows for
manufacturing and distribution, again,
which is what the petitioner is
proposing. For this reason, staff
believes the the requested use is
consistent with the character of the
nearby land uses and also aligns with
the intent of the comprehensive plan.
Um for those reasons, summarizing, we
believe that criterion was met uh
because we found in the affirmative all
three findings
um
based on that report, staff staff's
position is favorable regarding the
requested entitlement. Um a sample
motion again has been provided on the
last page.
Happy to answer any questions you have,
otherwise, I'll turn it back to you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any questions for
staff?
Uh seeing none, I would invite the
petitioner up, if they're here, to
speak.
If you would state your name and
address.
» My name's Ken Woodcox, address 3188
Bluewater Court, Newburgh, Indiana
47630.
I'm here representing Edward Ivey, the
petitioner, and also representing Auto
Course System.
So,
um first, to kind of give some context
here, uh want to thank the staff uh with
the town and the planning department,
kind of everybody that was involved in
reviewing this petition
um
from like I said, the the town planning
department from the beginning, the
professionalism that was exhibited, the
responsiveness, the thoughtful analysis
as we really went through this with the city of Zionsville to learn a little
bit as well. We've been in
We've uh we've looked for property in
multiple different areas around the
Indianapolis area,
um and we
each place you go it's a little bit
different and you learn a little bit and
I I believe the process was actually
helpful in the end to help us make a
better determination of what we want to
do.
To give you some context of who we are
and what we do, Auto-Chlor System is a
nationwide company and we specialize in
leasing, manufacturing, and servicing
commercial dish equipment dish dish
machines and providing cleaning prod-
products to restaurants, hotels, health
care facilities, schools,
and other hospitality institution.
For the last couple of decades, we've
operated our business in the
Indianapolis area,
uh most recently on 79th Street in
Marion County.
Our proposed operation in this location
it would be about 12,000 square feet
in a 30,000 foot square foot uh
multi-tenant uh building.
Uh the facility for us would primarily
uh serve as a regional hub for service,
distribution, warehousing, and
administrative operations uh with light
manufacturing activities related to the
blending of soaps and detergents. That's
what outlines us in the I2 parameter.
Um importantly, our operation is as as
Jonathan said is more consistent with I2
light industrial general industrial use
rather than the traditional um heavy
industrial operations. As noted in the
staff report, our operation does not
involve heavy outdoor machinery or
equipment, um substantial outdoor
storage, or any type of unusual high
traffic generation, or any type of
nuances that generally are common with
uh I3 uh heavy industrial buildings and
operations. So, think noise, odors,
trash. Uh we're not going to bring those
to your community here.
Um
and and and as Jonathan stated, our
operation is is is is less than
intensive than the the uses already
outlined in that I-3 zoning area.
Our operations, uh, one of the concerns
sometimes is
our operation is completely enclosed
within the building.
In in that building, there's no outdoor
storage. We're not proposing any
exterior modifications. We're not trying
to change any traffic flow traffic flow.
We're not trying to modify parking, and
we need no additional outdoor storage.
The site already contains the
infrastructure necessary to support our
use, including the parking, loading
areas, utilities, and appropriate
building systems are already there for what we need.
Now, from a community standpoint, um,
this is a relatively low-impact
facility. We employ approximately 14
people in these locations on average
nationwide.
Uh, we operate primarily during standard
business hours. We utilize medium
cargo-size vans, like your Ford Transit
vans you see on the roads today. This is
not a large-scale industrial trucking
company uh, that's going in there.
Our service employees come into the
locations in the morning. They go out
into the into the community and service the customers and come back at
the end of the day. Our facility is not
open to the public. We do not have any
type of retail sales, and we have zero
customer traffic.
We all AutoChlor, we we also believe
that
we're we would be a strong long-term
addition to the Zionsville business
community. We take pride in operating
professional,
well-maintained facilities, investing in
our employees, and being responsible
neighbors in the communities we serve
nationwide.
Personally, as an Indiana resident, I'm
excited for AutoChlor to integrate into
this community.
Most importantly, the request is already
specifically outlined within the zoning
ordinance
through the special exception process
for I-2 uses within the I3 district. We
believe our proposed use aligns close
closely with both the intent of the
original ordinance
and
the character of the surrounding area as
it is today.
We appreciate the opportunity
to consider this tonight.
If there's any questions regarding this
or regarding our business business
operation, I'll be glad to answer.
>> Commissioner, are there any questions
for the petitioner?
>> One question, you said blending of
soaps. Um
does that does that require any exhaust?
>> Excuse me?
>> The blending of soaps, is there any
requirements of
like exhaust fumes or anything coming
off of that?
>> No.
nothing of that nature.
>> No, it's essentially a
These are concentrated products that are
blended in stainless steel tanks with
water that they come into. So, you're
looking at an electric motor that's
spinning a little propeller that's about
like this.
Um there's no exhaust fumes that we're pumping out of the building or
anything like that.
Great question.
>> Um I'm
going to note and I've had to remind
myself in reading this petition a couple
of times.
I3 is heavier industrial than I2. I2
would permit this use, correct? There
would not be any need to apply for a
zoning or
>> Yes, yes, yes, sir.
>> Okay.
>> It's a permitted use in I2.
>> So, I
I've been trying to wrap my brain around
why it got written that way.
I haven't figured it out yet, but it has
been. So, you're here and and thank you
for your good nature.
Uh but since you're here having to do
this, um
you've mentioned your organization has
operated in Indiana.
Um
I'm not able to name whatever Indiana
department would be concerned about you
guys pouring things into the wastewater
treatment that you shouldn't be, but are
uh
are there any uh open
uh or recent investigations by the
environmental authorities here in
Indiana?
>> So, one of the thing we've been in
business almost 90 years. So, one of the
thing we're based out of Mountain View,
California. If you could imagine the
regulations in California are uh
a little different. Um we've So, we've
learned a lot along the way. Um and so,
what I what I would share with you is is
this would be our first manufacturing
facility in the state of a production
facility in the state of Indiana.
Um however, we we operate
about 14 or 15 of these across the
country in different locations. And one
of the studies that we
put a lot of work into working with the
fire department. We've already been in
contact with Ron Lips, the fire marshal
here about MAQs and things such as that.
Um but we put the same practices that we
put into our California manufacturing
facilities, production facilities,
whether it's secondary containment. We
We're monitored by the EPA because it's
a sanita- We have sanitizers that are in
every restaurant and kitchen that you go
eat at today. Um we work with all those
in every jurisdiction uh because number
one, it's the right thing to do. Number
two, it's required in their jurisdiction
and what they actually oversee. So, as
far as open cases or anything like that, is not the case. We haven't had
anything on this side of the country at
all. Anything that we have had exposure
to would be California based. Um we
treat all of our waste water before we before we dispose of it back into the
system. Uh that's regulated and
monitored where we have to turn it in
every every month. Um and any any
situations where you're actually having
to do more than that, you hire a waste
haul facility a waste haul company and
they would pull that out. But the type
of uh chemicals that you're producing or
blending in these locations is the same
chemicals you have in your house. So,
when it spills on the floor and things
like that, it's the same exact chemicals
that they're using to clean L Maison or
Sweetgreen or wherever right here in
this community. So, it's when we're
talking about chemicals, these aren't
we're not manufacturing new raw
materials and extruding them out and
things like that. It's really just your
common commodities, soaps
that you're having today. So, for us,
the majority of our wastewater you're
testing anywhere between 7, 7.5, 8
on the pH scale.
>> Thank you. That's all I have for now.
Will there be any outdoor storage?
>> There will not.
Completely contained within the current
building.
>> Okay.
» I I was Jim, I don't know why we have
right I guess I know why we have this
requirement for my three if it's a
compliant in I2, they start to come in
front of us. I understand
the thinking behind the the standard,
but yeah, this is this is pretty simple
one for me. I think staff got it right.
>> If it was
this is
entirely no bearing on him, but and I
stumbled into this even frankly in the
pre-meeting.
If this was I2 needing a special
exception for something that was by
right and I3,
I'd have a long list of things I'd
require.
But, that is this is the more intense
industrial use.
Um
it's um
you know, the EPA is is going to get
involved if something's going going awry
and I don't think anybody wants wants to
sign up for that.
Um
so, now that I've
corrected my earlier comments to to
before the meeting to staff, I'll I'll
invite uh nobody's signed up to speak,
but is there anyone online?
IT?
>> I'm sorry, one more time. I'm dealing
with other issues.
>> Oh, I'm I'm uh is there anybody online
wishing to speak on this petition?
>> Um
I do not believe so.
There is no one.
>> Okay.
Um
looks like I am closing, opening, and
closing uh public comment at 7:33 p.m.
Uh any further discussion?
» I'm in agreement.
>> Uh it s- sounds like we're ready for a
motion. Thank you all.
Well, we'll see.
>> I'll make a motion. I move that docket
2026-05-SE,
special exception to allow manufacturing
of soaps and detergents at 10730
Bennett Parkway, Zionsville, Indiana
46077
be approved as presented and described
based on the findings in the staff
report and staff recommendations,
submitted findings of fact, and evidence
submitted during the hearing.
>> Do we have a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you, Mr. Fedor. All in favor, I.
>> I.
>> Uh
any opposed, same sign.
Thank you all. Congratulations. Welcome
to the neighborhood.
Okay. On to the third petition and final
petition of the evening.
2026-06
DSV, a development standards variance
pursuant to section 194.082
table 3 to reduce the 45-ft road
frontage requirement for property in the
single-family residential R1 zoning
district at 6724 West Stonegate Drive,
Zionsville.
Uh Jonathan, would you kick it off?
>> Yes, sir.
Um
IT, if you can uh switch the TV to my
screen, I think it'll be helpful in
explaining the request.
Um okay, so yeah, so the the petitioner
is actually requesting a development
standard variance um to reduce a
standard um in 194.082.
The The requires all of our rural zoning
properties to have a minimum road
frontage of 45 ft. The petitioner's
request is to reduce that 45-ft
road frontage requirement to reduce that
requirement down to 20 ft.
Um and if approved,
that would allow this parcel uh I
apologize, I just zoomed in. That would
allow this parcel
um as part of his proposal
to utilize
what you see um
which is this access easement. So, the
20 ft, that's where that number comes
from.
This property is otherwise landlocked
and as you can see on the screen, cannot
produce 45 ft of road frontage in its
current configuration.
Um going through the staff report,
you'll see
um
you'll see two things that I'll I'll focus on. The secondary plat for
Stonegate, um as well as the findings.
Um the the petitioner's narrative does a
good job of also summarizing this
request. Um but to speak to the creation
of the lot, um which I think is
important in this case, um
this lot was created in 2004
utilizing
um
what we call it an exemption in the
zoning language,
um
which essentially says if your if your
parcel your parent parcel existed in its
current configuration
as of January 1st, 1999, you're entitled
to one lot split um without being
subject to the requirements of the
subdivision control ordinance, right?
So, that's important. January 1st, 1999.
And you'll see on the screen this
parcel, which was the leftover piece of
the parent parcel.
And this parcel, they used to be one.
And in 2004, the owner at that time took
advantage of that exemption
and um
split essentially this parcel from the
parent parcel, um thus creating what you
see today.
Um although it was done legally and
recorded at the county through that
exemption process, it's clear that they
did not take into account the
development standards. And because they
didn't have to go through the SEO review
and approval process that most
subdivisions have to do, right? Which is
through plan commission.
Um and because the county doesn't have a
mechanism to prohibit people from
recording
these types of lots, right? What occurs
is people take this exemption, they they
think, "I'm exempt from the SEO." So
they just go and they record an um
an updated legal description at the
county, which is how the lot is created.
So it's legally created, however, it is
non-conforming, right?
Um and so that's what occurred here. And
over time, I guess ownership changes
hands, um and the petitioner is now the
owner of this property, um although he
did not create the situation.
So, jumping uh to the again, to the
proposal,
um
he wants
a variance to reduce the 45-ft road
frontage requirement to 20 ft. And if
you read through the documents, the
intent, um again, is to utilize this
access easement that is owned
by the Stonegate HOA.
Um and on the recorded plat, it's
clearly marked for use for 117 and 116.
But the petitioner has provided
documentation that shows, um
in his opinion,
that he has the right to utilize this
access easement.
And so that's the request. The request
before you is to reduce it from 45 ft to
20 ft. It's ultimately the petitioner's
responsibility if the request is
granted, right? It's the petitioner's
responsibility to identify where that 20
ft comes from, right?
Um so the request before you is only
focusing on the reduction of 45 ft down
to 20 ft. Um approval of this variance
request does not grant the permission
the petitioner the right to utilize this
access easement, all right? It's going
to be a separate conversation that will
have to occur between the petitioner and
Stonegate HOA, okay? So we're only
focusing on reducing the 45 ft from 45
ft down to 20 ft.
Um and then it's the petitioner's
responsibility to identify where that 20
ft comes from, okay?
Jumping to
the um if you look on page four, you'll
see the development standards again,
table three, 45 ft uh in all districts
including this one, um the petitioner
provided a
um a good exhibit uh you'll see on page
four
essentially that shows his parcel and uh
the block A, which is the utility and
access easement. Um a good exhibit that
shows
how it relates to this parcel.
Page five is a uh is a screenshot, a
snippet of the recorded plat, and you'll
note on the recorded plat um
that it clearly states block A, common
access and utility easement for lots 116
and 117. There is no mention of this
parcel. Um however, there there's other
conversations to be had as as to whether
or not this parcel can actually utilize
the access easement.
Skipping to
the findings.
With a development standard variance, we
have to answer three findings.
The grant will or will not be injurious
to public health and safety, morals and
general welfare welfare of the
community. Uh number two the use or
value of the adjacent of the area
adjacent to the property uh included in
the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner. And number
three, strict application of terms of
the zoning ordinance would or would not
result in unnecessary hardship in the
use of property.
Staff's position on item number one, uh
we agree with the petitioner. Uh if the
request is granted, they're still
required to receive approval of an uh
what we call an IOP, an improvement
location permit. Um this ensures the
development of this site will comply
with water, sewer, building code, fire
requirements, etc. prior to issuing the
certificate of occupancy.
All these standards are set in place,
uh intended to protect public health,
safety, and the general welfare of the
community. Um additionally, which this
has since changed, but at the time of
this writing, I had not heard from um
any of the members of the public. We
have since obviously heard from members
of the public today.
Uh but at this time we had not, and so
for the reasons listed uh in our staff
report, we believe this criterion was
met. Um and I want to take this time, uh
before I forget, I just want to point
out um
I received several letters. Um some of
them are attached to the agenda. I had
time to put them digitally on the
agenda.
Um
some of them I did not have the
opportunity to put on on the digital
agenda. However, all of them you all
were provided copies with. Um
so they're in front of you if you want
to take a look at those.
Um jumping to item number two,
the use or value of the area adjacent to
the property included in the variance
will not be affected in any
substantially adverse manner. Uh once
again, staff agrees with the petitioner.
Uh the property will be developed with a
single-family residence, uh which from a
use standpoint is the same as all the
surrounding land uses.
Um developing the site would actually
add value to the property.
For these reasons, we don't anticipate
adjoining properties being adversely
impacted.
Additionally, again, um this is dated
because we have heard uh we heard from
neighbors on Monday and and neighbors
today, but at the time of this writing
we had not heard from neighbors.
Um and so for those reasons, we believe
that criterion was met.
Item number three,
uh strict application of the zoning
ordinance would or would not result in
unnecessary hardship in the use of the
property.
Uh staff, we agree with the petitioner.
Strict application of the zoning
ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship in the use of this property. Uh
again, unnecessary hardship defined as
all relevant factors when taken together
indicate the land involved cannot yield
a reasonable return because of unique
set of circumstances.
A claim of unnecessary hardship
justifying the grant of a variance
cannot be based on a self-created
condition.
Mere showing of economic loss is not
sufficient.
In this case, the zoning ordinance
allows rural properties to be split and
recorded without a zoning review to
confirm the resulting properties meet
development standards.
This is the case
uh for this petitioner. Again, it was
done prior to um
in 2004.
And again, based on the above analysis,
we believe this is not This is not
believed to be a self-created condition,
and the owner is facing an actual
hardship in the use of the property.
Without the requested variance to reduce
the 45-ft road frontage, this subject
parcel cannot be developed in its
current configuration.
For these reasons, staff believes this
is This criterion was met.
Because we found in the affirmative for
all three criteria,
uh staff's position is favorable of the
requested variance reducing road
frontage from 45 ft to 20 ft um as
depicted um on the recorded plat for the
Stonegate subdivision.
Uh again, a sample motion is provided.
Um happy to answer any questions you
have. Um I will note that
we have provided a condition of
approval.
Um
the condition being part as part of
their submittal for the IOP,
uh the petitioner is required to provide
documentation that clearly
shows they have approval from the
easement owner
to utilize block A as access for the
parcel. That's the one condition we've
attached
um
to be submitted alongside their building
permit when that time comes if that is
uh if the variance is approved. Happy to
answer any questions you have.
» I'm sure there's any questions for
staff.
Well, I'm I'm going to jump in with one
but it may be more for our legal team.
It feels like I'm being asked to
consider a hypothetical.
If this person has legal access to the
property, would I allow a road frontage
uh reduction?
Is it proper that we consider this
variance request before that's
established?
» Yeah, I believe that's a uh
separate legal matter. The
uh
public and owners have a right to
request a variance and the board's job
is to just consider the
uh with consider the evidence within the
confines of of the variance request.
>> Uh then I will proceed contemplating a
hypothetical. Thank you.
Uh I would invite the petitioner to uh
come up and uh
speak. If you would state your name and
address
and if both of you speaking, name and
address for both.
» Um my name is Morgan Reese. I'm with
Innovative Engineering and Consulting
and I'm here with the petitioner Eric
Meary.
>> Um
my my name is Eric Meary. I'm 441 North
Park, um Indianapolis, Indiana. Used to
live in Zionsville since I was two,
however. So, just recently moved.
» Uh so, first I want to thank you all
this evening for allowing us to uh
present our petition for the property
located at 6724 West Stonegate Drive. Um
and then so starting just with a
property overview this larger picture is
just showing where and Zionsville this
property is located obviously within the
Stonegate subdivision to the north is
the Stonegate Elementary School and then
the Zionsville West Middle School.
And you can see from the aerial view
that this lot as Jonathan said is
essentially landlocked aside from the
20-ft access and utility easement. This
was indicated as block A in the section
five
Stonegate section five uh plat and we
have historically he the petitioner has
historically used this block A as the
ingress and egress for the site.
Um again as Jonathan said the variance
of development standards request we have
is in
relation to section 194.082
specifically table three which requires
45-ft of road frontage for our site but
given the circumstances where on we can
only get 20 ft and that's what we're
requesting tonight.
The practical difficulty here arises
primarily from the platting of Stonegate
section five. Um I have a document which
was also in the submittal for the
supplement to an amendment and in
article X I'm just going to read part of
it. Um and this was given to the
petitioner from the president of the
Stonegate HOA.
>> developer of the Stonegate HOA
um and so it says as a condition to a
willingness on the part of developer to
permit the added parcel and I will note
added parcel is this site and it's
indicated by there is a legal
description at the end, um which clearly
defines added parcel is this site.
So, to permit added parcel to enjoy the
use and benefit of block A drive as an
exclusive means of vehicular ingress and
egress through the development, the
owners of the added parcel hereby agree
to subject the use and development of
the added parcel to limiting ingress and
egress to and from the added parcels to
block A drive, restricting development
of the added parcel to no more than one
single-family dwelling and related
outbuildings and improvements, and the
powers and authorities reserved to the
developer
in article five, um
as if the added parcel constituted a lot
within the development. And so, from
this document, we feel that this It was
the intent the entire time to have this
lot part of Stonegate section five. Um
however, in the recorded plat, it got
left off for whatever reason.
Um and so,
this block A is the only way for Eric to
be able to get onto his site. There's no
other alternative access. And so, as
Jonathan said, that's why we're in this
situation, and the hardship was created
not by the petitioner, but by Stonegate.
So, in conclusion, um we are requesting
this to be able to build a single-family
home consistent with the character of
the Stonegate subdivision.
Um and we
will have
be having strict adherence to the 45-ft
um severely limits the available usage
of this lot. Uh it's 1 acre, and so it's
larger than the other surrounding lots
in Stonegate that
are nearby. Um and so, and the Finally,
the hardship was created outside the
petitioner's control.
Uh with that, I'll open it to any
questions.
>> Thank you, Commissioner. Do you have any
questions for the petitioner?
>> At this time, no.
» Okay. I would invite you all to take a
seat. I think we have several or three
folks that are signed up to speak.
Um I'll note again, as Jonathan did, we
have uh
some letters of remonstrance in before
us. Some of those people also appear on
the list to speak, which is their right,
but not all of them. So, um if you
haven't had a chance to read those
letters, uh please take a moment.
Um I'll invite Maureen Murphy uh to
speak.
» If you'd state your name and address for
the record, please.
>> Yeah, sure. Maureen Murphy, and I live
at 6722
West Stonegate Drive, Zionsville,
Indiana 46077.
Would it be possible, Jonathan, um
just to pull up where I live
relative to um
Eric's
Eric Murray's lot? Cuz it's a different
Eric.
» Um IT, if you could switch to my
computer.
Thank you.
Here.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
believe the parcel highlighted is your
parcel.
>> That That's 6722, um
and then my neighbor, Eric Pollen, is
the other neighbor in Stonegate who
shares that um
that Stonegate-owned uh
driveway. We use that, too, uh enter and
exit our
um
driveways and garages.
Um and I and I
just on the the hardship factor, I mean,
I think it's
fairly clear. You take a look at
Stonegate, it's a master plan community.
Those are our the lines of Stonegate
and, you know, they don't have these
kind of random lots in and out. Um
and uh when when we purchased our lot
um I believe Mr. Murray's lot was zoned
R3.
Um so, we were
fairly sure that there wasn't going to
be a house built behind us.
Um so,
yeah, just to summarize, um
I'm opposing the variance request uh 45
ft of frontage um
which is uh
you know, standard
uh is for um
uh
safety and independent access of of
residences.
The application is asking for a 20-ft um
access easement. Um I do want to note
that the actual usable drive, and again,
I know this goes to the hypothetical,
actual usable drive, I measured it
several times last week, it's 11 ft is
the driveway that between my lot and um
the Pollans' lot. Um you know, it does
kind of fan out as you get to the curb
just to have that nice kind of curved
curb thing, but it's an 11-ft driveway.
Um
Stonegate designed that for two
residences to share.
Um
and
uh you know, we're talking about adding
a third one.
Um
that shared access is
not designed for that. I'm not really
sure how a um
you know, fire truck gets in there or
all the sorts of things you guys worry
about with with zoning and why there are
those laws.
Um
there has also not been any clear
explanation of how
trash service would work, deliveries,
utility work. Um you know, I'm thinking
about where's the mailbox and just all
the things that are already uh
going on in that 11-ft drive.
Um obviously, construction will be very
disruptive uh to our existing homes, not
entering our garage. As you can see,
we're on kind of we call this little
eyebrow cul-de-sac. It's one-way for
two-way traffic, a lot of street parking
there or any um
you know, there's not much room to
maneuver there.
Um
already narrow.
And yeah, this is not a small
adjustment. It's a request to uh develop
which is what is a fundamentally a
non-conforming landlocked lot um that
lacks any proper frontage uh
depends entirely on shared access and um
uh
doesn't meet the basic uh standards. So,
I respectfully ask that the board um
uh decline the variance. Thanks.
>> Thank you.
Um Mr. Jeff Horton.
» Thank you.
I'm here representing my wife and I, and
we reside at 6101 Morton Road, and
that's
>> Full name, please.
>> Uh Jeffrey Horton.
>> Thank you.
>> Did I not say that? Sorry. Jeff and
Joyce Horton uh residing at 6101 Morton
Road in Zionsville. We're uh
two spots uh spots down uh from the uh
space there.
And do me one favor, Jonathan. Just zoom
out one touch.
So, we can see.
Yeah, that that's okay. So,
are you Okay, so you're on my property
there. And And for the minutes, uh we
weren't included in the digital, but I
did turn in a uh letter against it uh
from Joan Brown this afternoon. She
chose uh didn't have the ability to come
with us tonight, but uh, it is included
in the packet as Jonathan explained to
us, so.
Um, our biggest complaint is that it's
the
uh, putting a house there becomes
inconsistent with the property lines as
you can see and Marine mentioned the
Stonegate subdivision has a very clear
uh, outline and predetermined shape. And
by putting a house at that position at
the back of our property, so we all face
Morton Road, which is you're looking to
the map is to the left. Putting a house
there could potentially disrupt our use
of our rule uh,
property there that is very few left in
Zion's build. What we're going to take
use of it as long as we have it, so.
Uh, that's
uh, a part of our biggest uh, complaint.
Uh, I do feel the comment on the
property value was self-inflicted. If
you look at the boundaries of Stonegate,
this is clearly outside of it. It's it's
an attempt to be part of Stonegate
without paying the dues and the fees to
be in the property values to be in
Stonegate, so it's the old saying
sometimes if it looks too good to be
true, it probably is. Uh, it's too good
to be true to try to get Stonegate
address and access with a lump like
that.
Um,
the only other comment uh,
to to reiterate
the use of our properties could be
affected by a house back there. Uh, I
know the neighbors to us have some
animals and stuff and
uh,
we all use our property in varying ways,
so it a house doesn't fit there
according to our opinion.
>> Thank you, Mr. Orton.
It looks like I've got one more signed
up to speak in person and forgive me if
I get your last name wrong, but Mr. Bob
Einters.
If Would state your name and address,
please?
>> Bob Winters, 6001 Morton Road.
I first like to thank all of you for
taking the time
and the multiple hours and God knows
through the year how much time you spent
here, but I appreciate it.
I have lived at my home, my wife and I
and our then six children
since 1987. So, we predated Stonegate.
We of course predated the Early Learning
Center.
We predated the apartments that stand in
front of us. And I and I will say that
we actually supported
Stonegate with some reservations, but
did not object to it and supported uh
Dr. Wright's and his attempts there.
We in fact supported the building of the
Early Learning Center. A little bit
chagrined that the tunnel of trees that
I took care of for more than 20 years
disappeared despite the
promises of the school board, but that's
for another topic for another time.
And I have some mixed feelings about
this particular
property
that has been proposed.
First, I actually disagree that
it's going to help my property value. I
will say I dearly appreciate having
million-dollar homes in my back three
acres, right? Abutting mine, but having
a home right there, it's just
incongruous. It's anomalous
and I don't see how it's going to help
my property value and if anything, I
think when it comes to selling our
property, it may in fact hurt our
property value. So, I'm concerned there.
I'm concerned as well that they never came and talked to me
about putting the property
uh The school board talked to me about
putting the property. Uh Stonegate came
to me and talked to me before they put
the property.
Uh
I have no idea uh what uh will happen. I
have sheep and goats uh on those back a
couple of acres and have for years and years.
Um
but um
but but that Yeah, I just I just not so
sure that it fits as uh
the former speaker was uh saying um that
not sure it really fits with
the um intended use of the land or at
least as it's being used currently. I
will say I'm pretty laissez-faire when
it comes to uh a property owners uh
owners rights. I'm usually um
feel that you do what you You do what
you want with your property. I perhaps
don't feel as strongly as my colleagues
uh being against this, but uh for the
reasons I've just mentioned, it just
doesn't fit. Uh I will not help our
property values. It probably will hurt a
little bit. And um
at the very least um I would ask that uh
you have a continuance so that the um
Mr. Murray uh and I knew his father uh
and worked with his father
um could at least talk to us about what
he's planning to do. Uh
and but right now I stand not in favor.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Uh is there anyone online? Um
Okay.
Uh I will close public comment at 8:01
and invite the petitioner uh
to address any of the concerns.
» Um
I used to pay HOA dues. And since 2004
till
I can't remember what year I was paying
HOA dues. I was also paying undeveloped
lot maintenance fees. And the Stonegate
HOA never
did anything related to
um
you know, maintaining the property like
they do on some of the other other
undeveloped properties. So, I used to
bushwhack that property. I'm not sure
when you bought
your your lots if you were one of the
original owners. Um but when I bought
there was no
um
there was it was called the Chamberlain
parcel. That's how it was positioned cuz
of the people that owned
that other parcel or that other that
first house was the Chamberlain and I
imagine they were friends
>> Just real quick, you are addressing us.
>> Yeah, right.
>> It's difficult cuz you're answering the
question.
>> I just want to make sure I want to put
that out there.
>> I'm trying to be respectful, right. Um
that they were um I think they were
friends with with the Wrights's and I
think that they um
supported the development. I think
that's how that got into um put in
place.
Stonegate is full of multiple properties
that the only way to get into the
property
to the garage is through
the easement. It's through that the the
shared drive. Um if you look at the
other properties along there they were
all developed
with their own driveway other than these
two properties. So, my you know, you can
assume that well, why is why does that
other property have
why do those two properties have that
shared drive?
And it's the only reason those two
properties have that shared drive is to
access
my property as well, too.
Um
I think there's some conversation about
the the 20 ft and that comes with the
utility easement that's part of block A
as well. And so, that's where the 20 ft
is coming from rather than just the
11-ft driveway cuz there's also an
easement
on those two shared properties for
utilities in block A.
So, that's where the 20 ft is coming
from. Um as far as
properties being landlocked and less
than 20 ft
I know we're not supposed to talk about
other variances, but there are two other
properties in Stonegate proper that and
one is being built right now that are in
that same situation where they don't
have the 45-ft uh road frontage, 6155
and I think 6120. Um and 6120 is being
built right now.
So, it was an old house that got torn
down and I don't think they're using the
same
um foundation. I think there's a whole
new foundation that was poured, too. So,
>> Do you have anything?
>> Um
>> Yeah.
» I was just going to say regarding the
utilities, we have This isn't what it's
for, but I just wanted to let you know
that we have talked to the utilities and
they don't see any issues with extending
through the easement because it is a
utility as well as an access easement,
so they don't see any issues as far as
that goes. Um and then also since this
is zoned as R1, it is zoned to have a
single-family residential property on it
and every other property in this green
area has a single-family residence
except for this 1-acre property.
Um and so, yeah, that was all I wanted
to add.
» Why was this property not included as
part of the plat for Stonegate?
>> My my opinion after going through all
the stuff is that I don't think Larry
wanted to spend the money on replatting,
to tell you the truth, cuz everything I
mean, it's called added parcel and in
the the verbiage it says a lot in
Stonegate rather than just If it wasn't
going to be
a lot in Stonegate, they would have said
separate lot with access through
Stonegate. And you know, and in all of
this,
you know, all of these documentations
that I have, when I got the property,
I'm supposed to follow all the
architectural guidelines. Um there is
some conversation of um you know,
whether I'm using Stonegate and um,
not paying dues. I've I wrote to the uh
president of the board and I said, "I'm
I'm fully
um, would love to make it where this lot
is required to pay HOA dues cuz right
now it's this gray area that never
got resolved when Larry did all the
paperwork for the development. So, um,
so I'm I'm in favor of
having it officially part of Stonegate,
required to pay the dues. I paid the
dues for years.
I don't know what happened, um,
you know, when my dad t- kind of took
charge of the property.
Um, and um,
whether
I think he paid the dues, but I couldn't
find records of them, but I paid the
dues for years.
>> As the owner of this parcel, are you
entitled to use the amenities of
Stonegate?
>> Uh, if I pay the dues, yes. It's in the
documents, yes. Yeah.
As long as I pay the dues.
» This Eric, this is never a farm field or
this is like a the the access wasn't
designed to be for for farmers to be
able to gain access in there to harvest
crops.
>> Not in any Not in any of the documents,
no.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
And And it does have a Stonegate
address.
It doesn't have a Morton Road address.
It's got a Stonegate address.
So,
» Now, as as a lot owner in my
neighborhood, and as part of my the HOA
rules in my neighborhood where I live,
if I stop paying dues, then I get in
trouble.
Do you Do you have Is there a similar
repercussion?
>> I I think that be-
And I don't know if I This is just
speculation, but
I know that when a HOA when the
developer hands over the HOA
to the to the community,
the HOA community inherits
all of the deficiencies that the
developer created. And I don't know if
they're worried about that. I'm not, you
know, I I just want to get this approved
and um be able to either build a house
there or sell the property to somebody
else. Um I want to be respectful to uh
to the Stone- the other neighbors. I
wanted part of Stonegate. I know that
there are
um already some setbacks
that are required uh in in the property
since that's a big topic lately today.
Um I know there are some setbacks. I'm
willing to,
you know, accommodate those setbacks and
um make sure that they're respectful to
the other owners on the property. So.
Or the other owners of the next to me.
» Commissioners?
I I
This This is a strange one.
>> Yeah.
>> Um
the uh uh it has an R1 zoning and unless
legal's going to correct me,
they have a right to build a house there
but for
road frontage.
He's not corrected me, so I'm going to
assume that stands. So,
>> Yeah. I I I bought this property during
the Homearama
when the Homearama was in Stonegate and
there was a big sign, you know, I was
looking at another parcel in Stonegate
and it was a postage stamp, right? And
there was a big sign that says, you
know, Stonegate, a part of Stonegate, 1
acre. And Larry walked the property with
me.
So,
>> Sure. I
>> Yeah.
I appreciate that and we may have
more questions for you, but right now
we're
addressing each other. So, to me, the
only thing in front of us is
that as complicated as some things on
this are
you know, we've heard legal say that
whether or not there's clear
establishment of their right to the
shared access, we're supposed to decide
on
if we're
if the three factors are met
to allow them the variance on the road
frontage.
» I would
say yes.
>> Well, but at any further conversation to
Usually, when I get variances in front
of me, the one that is hard to get over
is the hardship one.
You can't build anything on this.
You can't use the R1 residential
without a variance on the
45-ft
setback.
I I understand why the neighbors
are concerned about the shared use and
in their view the expansion of of the
use of of this easement they share.
I
don't know that that's our thing.
» Because it has a Stone Gate address
and it was sold to be part of Stone
Gate.
I don't know what else
What would be the options for this piece
of land?
What else could you do with it?
>> Which is why I would argue it meets the
hardship exception.
>> If if if it was ag zone ground, I could
say hey, you could farm it. It's not
even zoned ag. It's in zone R1.
Um
as much as I I I
would say I don't I don't like it, but
it seems like we've had several type of
issues like this in the Stone Gate
development.
This seems to be another one that
like Eric said, it sounds like it was
a deal done that just didn't get
recorded properly somewhere along the
way. But, someone who buys a lot has the
right to have access to their lot,
particularly if there's already an
access and utility easement already for that
lot.
I don't like it, but it does it fulfills
the three requirements of our of our
standards. I think staff did a wonderful
job of preparing, and I agree with all
three
their analysis on this. I don't like it,
but I agree with it.
» Well, if no further discussion, I would
certainly entertain a motion.
» I'm saying that
I'll move that docket 2026-06-DSV
development standards variance to reduce
the 45-ft road frontage requirement
to 20 ft in the area of
block A depicted on the recorded plat
for the Stonegate subdivision for the
construction of a single-family
residence at 6724 West Stonegate Drive
be conditionally approved as presented
and described based on the findings of
the staff report, staff recommendations,
submitted findings of facts, substantial
compliance with the submitted site
plans, and
the following condition of approval.
As part of the submittal for an approved
location permit, the petitioner shall
provide documentation showing clear
approval from the owners of the easement
to utilize block A as access point for
the parcel.
>> I'll second.
» Okay. Um
I think we'll do a roll call vote on
this one, Mr. Dale, if you don't mind.
>> Josh Fedor.
>> Aye.
>> Josh Martin.
>> Hi.
>> Jim Hurst.
>> Hi.
>> Katie Glenn.
>> Hi.
>> Four approved.
>> Thank you very much.
» Okay.
We are on to other matters to be
considered.
Uh
a discussion on unnecessary hardship and
practical difficulty.
Um
I raised this at our last BZA meeting.
Um
I love that you guys are catching up.
We'll let you get out of the room. Thank
you.
I raised this at the last BZA meeting
because I
in my opinion at times we get boxed in
on things that are probably
good for the community but don't meet
the technical definition of hardship.
Um this came up before I was on BZA.
Plan Commission forwarded it to Town
Council without talking to anyone on
BZA, which was a faux pas.
Um and BZA raised their hand and said
we're we're not sure
that we think this is necessary. So Town
Council reasonably
but declined to move forward with it.
Now having lived with this uh hardship
for a year and a half uh
or so that I've been on the the BZA, I
would ask that we reconsider this again.
And if we have um
I will say philosophical agreement uh
that it's something that the Plan
Commission should consider again
forwarding to Town Council that they
would at least know that they had the
support or not
of the BZA.
Uh
and so in a moment I'll invite Mike or
Jonathan whoever might be
taking us through the document to go
through it but
I would be hesitant to try to reach any
resolution tonight especially missing
our chair.
>> Just a little background it was about a
year and a half ago
when the plan commission forwarded a
favorable recommendation
five in favor zero opposed
to the town council to replace
unnecessary hardship which is the
current standard with practical
difficulty.
With regard to development standards
variances
in addition to that replacing
unnecessary hardship with practical
difficulty
the proposed ordinance also added
definitions for practical difficulty and
unnecessary hardship.
Few months later
the town council voted to reject. That
ordinance amendment stating that the
ordinance was overly broad when
considering both the rural and urban
zoning districts. So I think that's a
help for
us if we want to you know
revisit this topic the town council
seemed to sense that there ought to be a
distinction
perhaps between the rural and urban
areas or in other words maybe
unnecessary hardship would apply to the
urban
areas and practical difficulty to the
rural just as an example not sure if
that's where you want to go.
And then so the council rejected it and
the plan commission took no further
action. So the council's decisions you
know stayed
with that decision. So
that's where we are. I think that you
may have I'm not sure Jonathan if we
handed out you know definitions for
practical difficulty and hardship or if
you want to put that on the screen
that might be helpful too depending on
how you want to carry this conversation.
» My team will switch to my computer. We
can put it on the screen.
Thank you.
>> Let Jonathan go here and then
>> If you can zoom in on that, Jonathan.
Make it larger for us.
There you go. That's much better.
There you go.
Yeah.
Understanding too that, you know,
depending on what the conversation this
evening, you may want to direct staff to
do some research.
Um you know, whatever whatever you need
uh to to move this forward if you decide
to move forward on this topic.
» So, I've been involved with this since
it first came and then we we decided
we we got a little wishy-washy on it.
And I I'd said at the time at Planning
Commission
um after we were rejected by Town
Council not to pursue any further
at that time
I said, "Let's give it a year or let's
let me get some some time under my
eyes." Fairly new to the BZA as well as
Jim Jim came on not too far after I did.
Uh we've both sat on this thing now for
over a year, seen some stuff come in
front of us.
Um
unnecessary hardship was the default
that I felt like we need to be at at
that time. However, going through it
throughout the year, I definitely think
that
uh practical difficulty needs to be
applied in certain areas of our
community for and and that's
something I'd like for staff to kind of
delve a little bit further into.
Um as well as, you know, a a special
exemption may be something we would want
to keep unnecessary hardship levels on.
Uh where we would not want to for a
development standard variance. We may
want to keep practical difficult So,
may maybe if you guys can do a little
homework on that end and tell it kind of
give us some guidance on how to go that
direction with it. That's kind of where
I'm at with it. But, I definitely think
we need to to re- revisit this subject
after going through what I have in the
last year and
saying no to some people who I really
wish I could have said yes to. But, our
standards are pretty clear.
>> Also, I should mention that that I think
the statute
or at least most communities use the um
the uh practical difficulty
uh finding. But, with the And look,
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
that the uh you know, Zionsville chose
the the higher, more rigorous standard
of unnecessary hardship.
>> Yeah,
local jurisdictions have the authority
to be more restrictive
um in adopting
uh unnecessary hardship is a use
variance standard. It's easy to
understand
the property can't re- it you're That's
where somebody comes in and wants to put
a business
y- have a business use in a
residentially owned residentially zoned
area.
You can wrap your head around
um in that in the use context, it's all
of the case law in Indiana
is interpreting what unnecessary
hardship means. And when cases get
appealed to court, then it goes up to
the court of appeals after a board of
zoning appeals hearing,
those are all in the context of use
variances, not development standard
variances.
So, it it makes
difficult.
Ultimately, the board of zoning appeals
is quasi-judicial.
And
you c- you call it uh you as as long as
you make the findings appropriately,
uh you you call whether it's a a ball or
a strike. So, you can get there
through unnecessary hardship. It's just
um it's just it's difficult. And And
really, in explaining the differences between
unnecessary hardship and practical diff-
difficulties, it's a matter of degree.
Um,
but
it's um it's it's
in the time that we've been helping and
representing um
this board and and the planning
department, um
it it's not unusual in
most jurisdictions, it's even a good
practice to
annually review the types of cases that
are coming through
and
what are the
issues that are are hanging up the board
and then doing exactly what you're doing
and revisiting
I mean, judges have judic- they have
judicial conferences and and bodies
where they
you know, judges are charged by the
Indiana legislature with statutes without sometimes without
guidelines or or explanatory um
other than
judges discussions in other cases.
And you know, they can make
recommendations to the legislature for
you know, requested changes to make
their jobs easier.
So, it's it's a
um
in my mind, and this is just my personal
opinion, the use variance definition
that the
are
well stated in in the staff reports and
that come up
at that standard, I don't
know how a development standard can ever
be granted because
it's a just
they they want to change a a setback for
a patio.
Well, the house can obviously still be
used for residential purposes because
it's for a house, there's a house there.
It's just those
So, it's um
it but
that that's a legislative decision that
the the town council under its authority
has they
So, what Mr. Frodo mentioned
it might make sense to
um have you can the
under its legislative authority the town
council could approve
uh a different standard depending on uh
for development standard variances in
different parts of of the town.
And that would probably make you still
have the uh
you know, there are
good examples.
I mean, one way I think of practical
difficulties in the jurisdictions that
we represent on development standards is
it's almost more of a
uh
there's still a healthy dose of was it
self-created
um
and is it purely economic?
But it it's practical difficulties is
more of a reasonableness standard and it
and really in the cases that
um I've sat in on where you've granted
that and gotten there through the the
stricter um
unnecessary hardship
the board discussion and the findings
are
the peculiarities to the topography or the presence of utility easements
that prevent the the development and the
use of the property, but
um
yeah, it's
I've
come to meetings I'll go back and joke
with Dan and I'm like
unnecessary hardship is
really tough for development standards
that it makes it really hard for you
guys as the judges.
» When I said let's revisit, I didn't
realize I was making it a lot harder on
myself. I went last year, but it it
you know
to the point uh that I
think was made
you you can navigate
if you really want to, you can find a
way to navigate around that necessary
hardship, but you have to really want
to.
And I'm missing a big data point, and
I'm not I don't want to speak for staff,
and I certainly don't
I'm not seating the responsibility for
me to understand what's in front of me
or my authority,
but the unnecessary hardship standard,
I think
at times, and maybe often times, has
town staff
recommending that we disallow something
that they were really kind of okay with,
but they weren't willing to do the hoop
jump and the stretches necessary to make
the unnecessary hardship argument.
And so I I don't know that we always get
a clear view
from staff as to whether or not they
think this is appropriate for the
community
or and fair to the the the neighbors and
the the landowner
on the unnecessary hardship standard.
And so I'm missing a data data point.
>> But it is also the petitioner's
responsibility to prove their hardship
to us. Staff has given us their
recommendations,
but I also don't think it needs to go to
the level where someone needs to hire a
counsel to try to prove to us something.
Um so like I said, I think it's
something we do need to revisit. I would
look forward to seeing what staff comes
up with for us.
Um so and then I would assume the next
step in this is this something that the
planning commission does,
or is this something we recommend to
town I I I can't remember the steps in
the process. So we
going to recommend a change to the
planning commission, planning commission
then recommends it to town council? Is
that how this works?
>> I think it'd be helpful to have a
proposal.
>> Or is it Yeah, from our end?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Uh to the planning commission.
Um for them to to weigh.
>> technically it's the planning commission
that would be making the changes for us
and then referring it on to town
council.
Well,
>> if you could uh kind of reiterate what
you would like staff to deliver to you.
>> Uh some you know, something that breaks
down
where staff feels that we would want to
put not
I don't want to put staff in that
position too much, but
some sort of breakdown between rural and urban with practical difficulty and
unnecessary hardship in all of our case
types where we are currently using
unnecessary hardship.
So,
uh for example, I think we had it's it's
part of a special exemption. It's part
of a development standard variance, but
I guess
Well, realistically, I just need to go
home and do my homework and think
through this. To be you know,
but some some sort of guidance on
here's how this would apply in a rural
setting, here's how it would apply in a
urban setting.
Or am I asking just kind of my brain's
thinking and I need to get like I said,
go home and think through this?
>> development standard variances
>> Yeah.
>> those really feel like practical
difficulty.
>> Yes, they do. Yes.
>> I'll just get to examples. Lot coverage.
But where where do you put lot coverage?
>> yeah, in the urban off the off the cuff,
I'd say urban we'd want to stay
unnecessary hardship.
>> Well, can you imagine a lot coverage
issue in rural?
That you wouldn't want hardship to be
at.
>> You're right.
» I guess let me ask this question of
legal. If
>> I got to think
>> No, it's If we if we lower it to
practical difficulty
for development standard variances
I'm going to argue with the lower.
>> Or or yeah, if we change it. Yeah.
>> If if we allow a little more discretion
>> in how we reach our decision.
>> That's what I'm trying to get to. So,
with practical difficulty, a petition
could meet all criteria,
but the BZA still has the discretion to
deny.
>> Correct.
>> All right. And And so, in that context,
this is my opinion. In that context,
that discretion gives you the ability to
look at everything on a case-by-case
basis. We don't necessarily need to
change it urban versus rural. What we
need to do is change it based off the
category. Development standard variances
across the board
should be practical difficulty,
which gives y'all afforded y'all the
right to have discretion on a
case-by-case-by-case-by-case basis. Some
will be urban, some will be rural, but
y'all have that discretion. Y'all retain
that discretion.
>> And I appreciate you making that point.
We're not actually giving away the
ability to say meets all three
standards, think it's wrong for
Zionsville, no.
>> I don't think we need to have the
conversation or dive that deep
>> into urban versus rural and and this one
has this standard and that one has that.
I think that we just set the standard.
It's practical difficulty.
>> us for with that with that
» Yeah.
>> caveat, I guess.
>> I I was not at the Town Council meeting.
I don't know the discussion that
occurred, but that would That would be
my argument is,
you know, the BZA members are the ones
that are, you know, making the
decisions. They're the ones that are in
the weeds of this thing.
Um what y'all need is discretion and
y'all need flexibility to look at each
case on a case-by-case basis and make
the decision that y'all feels right in
that moment for that petition. That's
often going to be urban, that's often
going to be rural, but we shouldn't
break it down that way. We should just
allow y'all to have that discretion.
Make it practical difficulty for
development standard variances only,
and that gives you the discretion every
petition,
understanding that if you don't like it,
you can still deny it.
>> Yes.
Uh the Does this amount of discretion
change
whether the BZA is using unnecessary
hardship or practical difficulty?
>> No, it it is still the collective decision of the board as
long as they make the findings
uh
appropriately.
And that there's evidence in the record
to support the judgment.
>> As it sounded like we were saying that
under the practical difficulty standard
the project may actually meet those
criteria, but the BZA can still vote no.
Is that a Is that an incorrect
>> Yes, uh absolutely. Yeah,
the development standard variances are
under practical difficulties are
denied all the time.
>> Okay, but but not so as under
unnecessary hardship.
» No, it's still I mean, the
as as
and I'm I'm just to explain
the way
we look at our job is to
protect the board
um from appeals to to courts.
So, that's why I keep saying as long as
you
deliberate properly and make your
findings and that the that the decision
is made appropriately
when I
it is
that's the best way to to prevent
yourself from being overturned if a if a
decision from here gets appealed to the
to circuit court.
>> So, the decision of the BZA should be
supported by the findings.
>> Yes.
>> And and whether it's practical
difficulty or unnecessary unnecessary
>> right?
But
>> It's but the findings for practical
>> Right, but it it yes.
Yeah, practical diffi- practical
difficulties is a
Well,
that goes back to my original point.
It's it's
development standards are different than
use.
So, it's
practical diff- and by statute, it's
practical difficulties for development
standards. It's not unnecessary
hardship.
» Just to clarify, changing the standard
practical difficulty and unnecessary
hardship,
one or the other doesn't take away or
add to the discretion that they have on
a case-by-case basis. You still have the
same level of discretion. What it does
change
is the I'm going to use the word
easiness, the ease in which a petitioner
can meet the standard. Right? So, right
now it's very challenging for a
petitioner to meet the unnecessary
hardship standard,
but if they by some miracle do meet that
standard, y'all still have the
discretion to deny.
With practical difficulty,
it's easier to meet that standard,
right? For the petitioner, which gives
y'all the ability to approve something
if y'all choose so choose to do so.
Um whereas historically,
it was very challenging to reach the
unnecessary hardship standard. So, if
y'all wanted to approve something, y'all
couldn't because they couldn't get there
anyway.
Does that make sense? It's easier for
the petitioner to get to the standard,
and then once they're at the standard,
then it's up to y'all to approve or deny
it. Y'all don't Y'all aren't giving or
taking away any more levels of
discretion.
It's just easier for y'all to be able to
approve something if you choose to do so
because the petitioner can get to the
standard easier.
>> Well, it
But I agree
with what you're saying conceptually. I
think legal counsel Mr. Dale's point is
if we want to not get overturned in
court, we still need to fail something
on one of the factors
>> Oh, yeah.
>> before we pass it.
>> Or approve it on the factors.
>> So, it Well, earlier I had said I could
not meet all three factors, just think
it's wrong for Zionsville, and off I go.
That would be
a bad idea, so I won't do that.
Not until it's my last meeting.
>> I got a I got a question on the
>> Party shot.
>> on the process we go through with this.
So, like I said, we're going to
recommend this planning commission. Will
there be public comment at the planning
commission
level? So, if there's people from the
community who have concerns
>> an advertised hearing item.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. It's a public hearing.
>> Yeah, I just want to make sure we do
have allow the public a chance to to
provide some input on this.
>> Do you want us to visit use variances
and as well as DSVs?
Or if this focus on DSVs?
>> Let's focus on DSVs right now. I think
we got our hands full with that.
>> Yeah, let's get the elephant in the
room.
>> one bite at a time. Let's see if we can
>> Okay.
>> build the trust with the with the that
folks will give us that additional
flexibility and our discretion.
Uh
and then we'll we'll see if that
solves our concern concerns. And I say
this like we've already decided to make
this ask of the planning commission. I I
don't mean to present it that way cuz
um I want everyone to have a chance to
sit with it and and Amanda hasn't had a
chance to weigh in.
» We have a research a research
assignment.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh it looks like there's one more
findings of fact for docket 202603 DSV.
Is that just something you need us to
sign or
>> Yeah, so this was approved last meeting
and so a question for legal. The
findings the the petition overall was
approved. Um everything's okay. For
whatever reason, the findings that we
sign
disappeared, never made their way back
to my desk. So, this is now just to
correct that
error. Um
do I mark it as the date it was approved
or as today the they're signing it?
>> Um
I would I either way's fine. I would recommend
marking it today's date. You the board
as long as it happens in an in an open
meeting, they can they can approve
findings at a subsequent hearing.
>> Okay. So, that's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to mark it as today's date,
but we all understand this was approved
last month um and we just
the paperwork disappeared. Okay.
>> Was it approved unanimously cuz I wasn't
here so I don't know if I need to sign
it.
>> I believe it was.
But just to be
cautious
I only need three to sign it. So
Josh, Katie, and Jim
you all sign this.
>> I remember it enough that I know I was
supportive of it so I'm happy to
>> replacement of the two-story garage?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> I think it was unanimous.
too but we we
don't need to put Josh Martin in that
position. We can the three of us can
sign it.
>> Signing for me is more senior for you
guys.
Bad move.
>> I already tried to make him counsel for
the night's meeting.
» 40 bucks from us just doesn't cover
that, does it?
>> Not that you're easily replaced.
>> Well
on that note, I sincerely apologize. I
had a scheduling area. I was
a scheduling error.
Um
and I was at the Crawfordsville Western
Boone baseball game at Western Boone
High School which is why I'm
uh
not in my
uh regular attire but I sincerely
apologize for for being late.
>> And sound it out of breath when you
walk. You look a lot out of breath
walking in the door.
>> I didn't get a speeding ticket driving
so that was fortunate.
>> Did you have to leave the game early?
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. I
>> Do you coach?
>> No, I was just just watching.
>> Oh, I I I guess I'm supposed to motion
to adjourn.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> All right. Thank you everyone.
Goodnight.
>> Thank you everybody.
>> Thank you. Thank you.