[0:00] Could all stand and
[0:01] recite the pledge of allegiance.
[0:03] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:06] United States of America and to the
[0:08] republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:12] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:15] justice for all.
[0:19] » Katie Glenn.
[0:20] >> Present.
[0:21] >> Amanda Miller.
[0:24] Josh Fador.
[0:25] >> Present.
[0:26] >> Jim Hurst.
[0:27] >> Present.
[0:27] >> Josh Martin.
[0:28] >> Present.
[0:29] >> Four present, we have a quorum.
[0:31] Okay, and before I jump into the
[0:34] agenda, I see a number of people in the
[0:36] audience.
[0:37] Uh if you wish to speak tonight, we ask
[0:39] that you sign up. If you haven't signed
[0:41] up, I can make these papers available to
[0:43] you again, but if you would please do so
[0:45] here in the next few moments.
[0:47] Um
[0:59] Uh next item on the agenda is the
[1:00] approval of the April 6th uh
[1:05] meeting minutes.
[1:07] Any changes to the minutes or can I have
[1:09] a motion to approve it?
[1:10] >> So moved.
[1:11] >> A second?
[1:12] >> I'll second.
[1:14] >> All in favor?
[1:15] >> I.
[1:19] » Uh there are no continuances or
[1:21] withdrawal requests. There is no new
[1:23] Excuse me, no continued business.
[1:26] So we are on to new business. I will
[1:28] call
[1:29] uh
[1:30] docket 202604
[1:33] uh DSV
[1:35] uh development standards variance
[1:36] pursuant to exhibit five development
[1:38] standards matrix to encroach into the
[1:41] rear yard setback for the construction
[1:43] of a patio on lot V4 in section nine of
[1:46] the Holiday Farms PUD.
[1:49] Uh Mr. Smith, are you taking this?
[1:51] >> Yes, sir.
[1:52] Uh
[1:53] so yeah, you summarized the project.
[1:55] This is in the Holiday Farms PUD.
[1:58] Uh the petitioner
[2:00] uh on this particular lot there is a
[2:02] 50-ft rear yard uh platted building
[2:06] line.
[2:07] Um which is unique.
[2:10] The petitioner is requesting, if you
[2:12] look at the site plan,
[2:14] uh he is requesting to encroach 3 ft
[2:18] um into the 50-ft building setback line.
[2:21] Uh it's 3 ft by 22 ft, which is a total
[2:25] of 66 sq ft. If the petitioner which
[2:28] wishes to move forward with his project,
[2:31] um the variance either needs to be
[2:32] granted or he'll have to remove that
[2:35] portion of his patio.
[2:39] Um and I've provided on page four
[2:42] of the staff report, you can see um two
[2:46] pictures. One is the recorded plat. I've
[2:49] highlighted, you'll see the 50-ft
[2:50] building setback line.
[2:52] Um and you'll note the second picture is
[2:55] the site plan that was submitted, and
[2:58] you'll see the patio as it relates to
[3:01] that 50-ft setback line, the 3-ft
[3:03] encroachment, uh the 22 ft in width.
[3:07] The
[3:10] standards for unnecessary hard or for uh
[3:13] the granting of a development standard
[3:14] variance, there's three standards. One,
[3:15] the grant will not be injurious to
[3:17] public health and safety.
[3:18] Two, the granting of this request will
[3:20] not have an adverse impact in the use or
[3:23] value of adjacent properties. And three,
[3:26] uh strict application of the zoning
[3:27] ordinance will result in unnecessary
[3:28] hardship. Uh just to read staff's
[3:30] position for the record, um item one,
[3:33] the grant will not be injurious to
[3:35] public health and safety. Staff, uh we
[3:37] agree with the petitioner, uh except for
[3:39] the rear yard setback, the proposal
[3:41] meets all other applicable development
[3:43] standards, uh and it still provides a 47
[3:45] rear yard setback, which is
[3:47] significantly larger than all other
[3:49] residential rear yard setback
[3:51] requirements in our zoning ordinance.
[3:53] Uh it does not encroach into the 30-ft
[3:55] or 35-ft drainage easement or the 15-ft
[3:58] green belt. Um and you can see that on
[4:01] the uh again on page four of the
[4:03] recorded plat. Additionally, as part of
[4:06] the approval process, the petitioner is
[4:07] required to receive approval of uh what
[4:10] we call an IOP, an improvement location
[4:12] permit, from the town um and approval
[4:15] from their HOA prior to construction,
[4:17] both of which are intended to ensure the
[4:19] project is not injurious to public
[4:21] health and safety.
[4:22] Uh public noticing was also completed
[4:25] and at the time of this writing, we were
[4:27] not aware and did not receive any
[4:29] concerns or complaints from the public.
[4:31] Uh so for this reason or for these
[4:33] reasons, we believe this criteria was
[4:34] met.
[4:36] Item number two, uh the use or value of
[4:38] the area adjacent uh to the property
[4:41] included in this variance will not be
[4:42] affected in a substantially adverse
[4:43] manner. Uh once again, staff agrees with
[4:46] the petitioner. Uh if the request is
[4:48] granted, the petitioner is still
[4:49] maintaining a 47-ft rear yard setback.
[4:52] Uh again, significantly larger than all
[4:54] other residential zoning classifications
[4:56] in our zoning ordinance.
[4:57] Uh we believe this patio adds value to
[4:59] the site. Uh adjoining properties are
[5:01] not anticipated to be adversely
[5:03] impacted. Uh additional Additionally,
[5:05] surrounding properties again were
[5:06] notified. Um
[5:08] staff as of this writing has not
[5:09] received any concerns from neighbors or
[5:11] the public. So barring objections being
[5:13] raised during the public hearing, uh we
[5:15] believe this criterion was met as well.
[5:18] The final one, uh strict application
[5:20] Item number three, strict application of
[5:22] the zoning ordinance would result in
[5:24] unnecessary hardship in the use of the
[5:25] property. As staff, we disagree with the
[5:27] petitioner on this criteria.
[5:29] Um
[5:30] we define unnecessary hardship as the
[5:32] following: All relevant factors, when
[5:34] taken together, indicate that the land
[5:36] involved cannot yield a reasonable
[5:38] return because of unique circumstances.
[5:41] A claim of unnecessary hardship
[5:42] justifying the grant of a variance
[5:45] cannot be based on self-created
[5:46] conditions. A mere showing of economic
[5:49] loss is not sufficient.
[5:51] Summarizing, in this case, we believe
[5:53] the subject property already yields a
[5:55] reasonable return supporting a 5,444
[5:58] square foot residence. Uh in staff's
[6:00] opinion, the desire for additional
[6:03] outdoor space does not rise to
[6:05] unnecessary hardship. Uh we could not
[6:07] identify unique circumstances or
[6:09] conditions on this site such as an
[6:11] easement or the topography of the land
[6:13] uh that would support granting a
[6:15] variance. Um additionally, the secondary
[6:18] plat for section 9 of Holiday Farms was
[6:19] recorded in September 2023. Um the owner
[6:23] did have access to this information
[6:24] prior to purchasing the property and
[6:27] designing their home. Despite having
[6:29] access to this information, they moved
[6:31] forward with the current proposal
[6:32] ultimately building the patio without a
[6:34] permit and encroaching 3 ft over the
[6:36] building line. Um in staff's opinion,
[6:39] this is a self-created hardship. For
[6:41] these reasons, uh we believe this
[6:42] criterion was not met.
[6:45] Um summarizing, you have to answer in
[6:47] the affirmative all three. Uh
[6:49] we could not get there on item number
[6:51] three. So, based on that, we have an
[6:54] unfavorable staff recommendation uh of
[6:57] the requested variance to encroach 3 ft
[6:59] into the 50-ft rear yard setback for the
[7:01] patio.
[7:03] We've provided a sample motion
[7:05] um
[7:06] at the last page of the staff report.
[7:08] I'm happy to answer any questions you
[7:10] have. Otherwise, I'll turn it back to
[7:11] you.
[7:12] >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. Um members of the
[7:15] BZA, do you have any questions for
[7:16] staff?
[7:17] >> Not at this time, I don't know.
[7:19] >> Okay, I would invite the petitioner to
[7:22] approach the uh
[7:24] podium, state your name and your
[7:25] address.
[7:33] » I yeah, I'm Pete Gray. Um uh owner of
[7:36] Executive Homes.
[7:37] Uh 1010 Third Avenue Southwest in Carmel
[7:41] is our address.
[7:43] Um appreciate your time today. Um
[7:46] I'm kind of new at this. The last time I
[7:47] did a one of these things was for a barn
[7:49] I was building in Carmel and that's been
[7:50] 25 years ago. So, um I I spent a little
[7:54] bit of time. I understood that there was
[7:55] a a similar request for an encroachment
[7:59] that was presented to this board in
[8:01] January.
[8:03] Um
[8:03] so, I kind of followed the you know,
[8:05] kind of the the guideline and criteria
[8:07] that they went through and first of all,
[8:09] the gentleman was very complimentary of
[8:11] Jonathan and his help and I will
[8:12] continue to I'll go along with that as
[8:14] well, very helpful. I appreciate the um
[8:16] all the assistance, but um I guess from
[8:19] the from the standpoint um the best I
[8:21] can do is kind of compare what was
[8:23] approved in January with what I'm hoping
[8:25] to get approved this evening and see if
[8:27] uh see if we can go along with that, but
[8:29] um
[8:30] so, I've I as Jonathan mentioned, we
[8:32] have a 50-ft rear building setback line
[8:35] on that property, which
[8:37] uh that that setback isn't even listed
[8:40] in the in the document with the PUD. The biggest setback line they even
[8:44] reference is a 30-ft building setback
[8:46] line. So, it's it's a pretty
[8:47] extraordinary setback line to begin
[8:49] with. Um
[8:51] and uh I'm requesting a 3-ft
[8:53] encroachment into that that 50-ft uh
[8:57] BSL.
[8:58] Um the uh and as a kind of a comparison,
[9:01] the one that was approved back in
[9:03] January, uh they were were requesting a
[9:05] 10-ft
[9:07] um
[9:07] encroachment um that would take that
[9:10] really all the way back to the 20-ft
[9:12] building setback line. So,
[9:14] relatively insignificant amount in
[9:16] comparison anyway.
[9:18] Um
[9:19] Both properties are unique in that
[9:21] neither one of them back up to any uh
[9:23] home sites. So, they were had back up to
[9:26] a uh property to the north that's not
[9:28] developed and this backed up to uh
[9:30] commercial space. So,
[9:32] uh
[9:33] one of the considerations at that at
[9:35] that approval was that it did not back
[9:37] up to another home.
[9:39] Um I'm requesting a 3-ft encroachment
[9:42] with 66 sq ft of patio.
[9:45] Um
[9:46] Uh
[9:47] encroaching, the one that was approved
[9:49] back in January was a 295 sq ft patio
[9:54] with 10-ft encroachment. So, again,
[9:56] significantly less of of an encroachment
[9:59] than than was was previously approved.
[10:02] Um and the you know, I still I'll I'll
[10:05] retain another 12 ft between
[10:08] even this with this 3-ft encroachment,
[10:10] I'm still 12 ft away from a 35-ft
[10:13] drainage easement. Um and the other one
[10:15] that was approved uh was adjacent to and
[10:18] on top of a 20-ft drainage and utility
[10:21] easement. So, again, a little bit more
[10:23] space.
[10:25] Um and I thought it was interesting. Um
[10:26] both both requests, my client's
[10:28] Brazilian. They have some pretty unique
[10:30] cooking requirements and the gentleman
[10:32] that got approved um also had some
[10:34] cultural requirements that they they do
[10:36] a lot of outdoor outdoor cooking to uh
[10:40] in their
[10:41] at least they prefer doing it that way,
[10:42] but
[10:43] uh and then as Jonathan mentioned, that
[10:46] both of those pro you know, projects had
[10:48] building setback lines that exceed
[10:50] Zionsville's typical requirement. Um I
[10:53] think that's 20 ft.
[10:55] The one that was approved in January had
[10:57] a 30-ft BSL and mine's a 50-ft BSL. So,
[11:02] we're we're well within what Zionsville
[11:03] typically looks for. Um and then I was
[11:06] going to make a comment um
[11:11] that house the footprint of that house
[11:12] is is 2,841 sq ft. It's a It's a
[11:16] relatively small three-bedroom ranch
[11:18] with a fin with you know, a partially
[11:20] finished basement. Um and the footprint
[11:23] of that house is literally within an
[11:24] inch and a half of the maximum width I
[11:27] could build on that lot and an inch and
[11:29] a half of the maximum depth I could
[11:31] build on that lot. And so, the the what
[11:35] was what's remaining is a small I'm
[11:37] going to call it offset in the in that
[11:39] building that's on the north
[11:42] northeast corner.
[11:44] Um which, you know, obviously when
[11:45] you're that close to all those property
[11:46] lines, there's not a whole lot left to work with. So, um they you know, the grilling area is kind of tucked into
[11:53] a a corner of the home that's created on
[11:56] the northeast uh northeast side. So,
[11:59] um but again, we're you know, I'm border
[12:01] to border. I'm within an inch and a half
[12:03] each direction of the maximum um
[12:06] footprint I could build on that both
[12:08] front to back and side to side.
[12:11] Um
[12:12] And then, as as Jonathan mentioned,
[12:14] building you know, the the the standard
[12:16] one and two are are fairly easy to meet.
[12:19] Um it's you know,
[12:21] standard number three, you know, the
[12:22] unnecessary hardship standard. Um I
[12:25] think it's kind of hard to argue that
[12:27] anyone who lives in Holiday Farms has
[12:28] very many unnecessary hardships. That's
[12:30] a beautiful community and and uh
[12:33] there's not a whole lot of unnecessary
[12:35] hardship uh you you you see as you go
[12:37] through there.
[12:38] Um but anyway, um it's it's one of those
[12:41] things uh I have a letter I think
[12:44] Jonathan I sent a copy to him. I have a
[12:46] letter from uh Hanky Development uh
[12:49] encouraging you to approve the 3-ft
[12:51] encroachment. Um
[12:54] and uh I guess that's what I'm asking
[12:56] for this evening.
[12:59] » Thank you. Uh before I invite uh
[13:01] questions from my fellow commission
[13:03] members, I'll just note that each zoning
[13:06] appeal stands on its own.
[13:08] >> Of course, I understand that.
[13:10] >> And uh so, just want to put that on the
[13:12] record.
[13:13] >> I get I've just I'm kind of new at this,
[13:14] so I just I knew that one was approved,
[13:17] so I just kind of followed the template
[13:18] that was there.
[13:19] >> I understand your thinking, but just so that you and everyone know,
[13:22] >> Fully understand.
[13:23] >> each one of these individually.
[13:24] >> Fully understood.
[13:25] >> Uh do we have any
[13:27] questions for the petitioner at this
[13:29] time?
[13:30] >> Has the patio already been built or
[13:33] >> Yeah, my my client worked directly with
[13:35] Indy Grills on the design. So, yeah, it
[13:38] that it and I take responsibility for
[13:40] it. It got beyond behind, you know, kind
[13:42] of in front of us on it. But, yeah, it's
[13:44] built.
[13:47] >> Like my other question was to the north
[13:49] of the setback, is that residential area
[13:51] or is that
[13:52] >> Um, it's I think it's I think it's R2.
[13:55] It's a huge huge lot with a big house on
[13:59] it. It's probably a 10 or 12 and it's a
[14:01] huge parcel. Jonathan, you can probably
[14:02] pull that up, Jonathan, but
[14:04] >> It's R2.
[14:05] >> Yeah.
[14:09] » They've had a driveway.
[14:10] >> Yeah, but
[14:11] >> Okay.
[14:13] » Are you pulling that up, Jonathan? So
[14:15] >> I I'm pulling it up right now. Um,
[14:17] if you could switch to the mouse mouse
[14:19] There you go. It just takes a second for
[14:22] all my
[14:23] I have too many layers turned on my GIS.
[14:28] » Well, Jonathan, even it might be helpful
[14:31] to the commission as a whole to
[14:33] um
[14:34] uh even if you went to Google Maps, it
[14:36] might show us uh
[14:37] >> Here Here's the Here's the parcel. It is
[14:39] a large parcel. It's zoned R2.
[14:41] Um, residential use.
[14:44] A a relatively larger home with
[14:46] associated accessory structures.
[14:49] Looks like a barn or a pole barn or
[14:50] something like that.
[15:02] » Would anybody have any further questions
[15:04] for the petitioner?
[15:05] >> Just a clarification. You said this
[15:07] house is 2,800 square feet.
[15:09] >> 20
[15:10] 8 Let me check my math here. 2,841
[15:14] I think is what Yeah, 2,841 square foot
[15:17] uh
[15:18] living space on the It's a ranch style
[15:20] plan. So, it's only got one story.
[15:21] >> It's a three-bedroom
[15:23] standard three-bedroom,
[15:27] It's got part of the basement's finished
[15:28] off with some additional living space,
[15:30] but that's that the footprint of the
[15:32] main floor is 2841.
[15:39] Uh
[15:40] I could have stretched it an inch and a
[15:41] half each direction, but it didn't pick
[15:42] me up very much. So
[15:47] Yeah, it's and it it is interesting. I
[15:48] mean, when I sit down with my design
[15:50] team, you know, we're you know, the you
[15:52] want you want to utilize everything you
[15:53] can on those lots and uh
[15:56] um so I you know, when when we designed
[15:58] it was very intentional that we were we
[16:00] were tight to both front building
[16:02] setback, you know, with the home and
[16:03] side building setback. So, yep.
[16:08] Yes.
[16:13] That's all I got so far.
[16:16] Jonathan, I don't know if anyone signed
[16:18] up to speak
[16:20] for this one or if there's anyone
[16:21] online. It looks like there may be
[16:23] someone. Did you sign up, sir? Okay. Um
[16:27] sir, if you'd take a seat for a moment,
[16:28] we're going to invite this gentleman.
[16:29] >> Sure.
[16:34] Thank you.
[16:39] » Mr. Colepepper, I presume?
[16:40] >> That's correct.
[16:41] >> Okay. If you'd state your name and your
[16:42] address.
[16:43] >> Uh yes, my name is William Colepepper
[16:44] and and I own the the property that you
[16:47] were just now referencing at 3402 South
[16:50] US 421.
[16:51] Uh my first time in a meeting like this,
[16:53] so I just received a certified letter.
[16:56] Um I don't know if it's possible for you
[16:57] to pull up a more recent Google uh just
[17:00] the Google Map image of the property,
[17:02] but it it is a completed home. There are
[17:04] two structures on it. Uh there's a
[17:06] 10,000 square foot main house and a
[17:08] 10,000 square foot hospitality house. Uh
[17:12] it's a significant property. We've made
[17:14] a significant investment in
[17:16] and I know that um
[17:18] the builder
[17:19] worked with Hanky and Holiday Farms, you
[17:22] know, intentionally to create that 50-ft
[17:24] setback in order to protect the value of
[17:26] our property. I understand that
[17:29] something has already been built. My
[17:30] concern is there about 12 or 14
[17:34] properties in Holiday Farms that their
[17:37] backyard goes into our property and the
[17:40] one that's being discussed today
[17:42] requesting the setback as you can see is
[17:44] right in the middle of my front yard.
[17:47] And I'm not sure how these things work,
[17:49] but I don't understand if if if a
[17:52] an exception is created for this
[17:54] property, is that just one domino in the
[17:56] middle that falls for the rest of all
[17:58] the other properties or will other
[18:00] individuals ask for 3 ft plus another 10
[18:03] ft or want to build a pool and and I'm
[18:05] trying to to understand. So, I guess as I stand here today, I'm I'm not in
[18:10] favor of the request. I'd like to ask
[18:12] for a continuance to just to have time
[18:15] to consult professionals to understand
[18:17] what this means to the entirety of my
[18:19] property. And and perhaps one question
[18:23] you guys can answer is if a variance was allowed for for this
[18:27] property could that be the end of it?
[18:30] And and you know, with this 3 ft because
[18:32] I understand it's only 66 or whatever
[18:35] however many feet that was described,
[18:36] but
[18:37] there's 14 other homes there that likely
[18:39] will want the exact same thing or more
[18:41] and I'm I'm trying to understand that.
[18:43] So, I'm not in favor and and would like
[18:45] to request a continuance to learn more.
[18:49] >> Thank you, Mr. Colepepper. I think I can
[18:51] answer your narrow question the same way
[18:53] I addressed the other gentleman. We take
[18:56] each petition on its own merits.
[18:59] And so, whether there was an approval or
[19:02] a denial tonight does not dictate what
[19:04] might happen next time if a variance
[19:06] request were to come in front of us. And
[19:08] that that's really all the visibility I
[19:10] can get at give to that.
[19:13] >> Okay, well that that um thank you.
[19:15] Appreciate that.
[19:16] >> No, thank you.
[19:23] » Missioners?
[19:24] >> Yeah, did you have somebody online?
[19:26] >> Oh, I'm so did we have anybody online?
[19:27] Thank you. Sorry. Okay.
[19:29] >> I thought you said you did.
[19:31] >> Okay, well that Mr. Colepepper is the
[19:33] only one that signed up. No one is
[19:34] online, so I will close the public
[19:36] comment at 6:53
[19:39] uh and invite commissioner discussion.
[19:43] Or excuse me, forgive me. I should give
[19:45] uh
[19:45] the petitioner a chance to
[19:48] answer anything that was raised during
[19:50] the remonstration if he wishes.
[20:02] » I get I guess my my only comment would
[20:04] be and um
[20:06] it is apparently some a different
[20:08] procedure not right wrong or indifferent
[20:10] but different. Um I've built 15 or 16
[20:14] homes in Holiday Farms. I've never had a
[20:17] request to get a permit for a patio.
[20:19] I've built for at least 15 in Pemberton.
[20:22] Never had to request to get a permit for
[20:25] a patio. So I at at some point there I think there's been perhaps a
[20:30] change in procedure or requirements or
[20:33] something.
[20:34] Um and so again I I guess that my only
[20:36] point being doesn't make it right or
[20:37] wrong but I just you know it's it's from
[20:40] the standpoint of you know I'm not a
[20:42] you know I'm not riding riding the range
[20:44] wild out there. It's something that
[20:45] we've never we've never
[20:47] been ever asked for you know a perm an ILP permit for for a patio.
[20:53] And I've been in both of those
[20:55] communities I was in the 99 Home A Rama
[20:57] at Pemberton and the two the excuse me
[21:00] the 2019 Home A Rama in Pemberton and
[21:02] the 2020 Home A Rama in Holiday Farms.
[21:05] So I I've been at both communities since
[21:06] the inception and and have never been
[21:10] even requested to get an ILP for a
[21:12] patio. So, but again, it's we we really do try
[21:16] to follow the rules. I just it's just
[21:18] kind of a new one for me anyway.
[21:21] >> Thank you.
[21:22] I would respond at least partially to
[21:24] that and that is you may still not be
[21:26] required to get a permit for a patio,
[21:28] but that there is still a setback
[21:29] requirement.
[21:30] >> Oh, I understand No, I I'm not I'm not
[21:32] trying to
[21:32] >> Okay.
[21:33] >> I'm not trying to blend the two.
[21:34] >> Okay. Okay.
[21:34] >> It's something that you know, it's you
[21:37] know, it the the the permit part of it's
[21:40] just unique or something we're going to
[21:42] have to get used to I think.
[21:43] >> Okay.
[21:44] >> And the and the the part that's
[21:45] interesting is and so many times when
[21:47] you're when you're at the design stage
[21:49] with the client, you know, I they don't
[21:51] know what they want. They know they want
[21:52] something, but you know, they want to
[21:54] stand in their house and look out the
[21:55] backyard and go, "Gosh, I think my patio
[21:57] would work here or here or here." So, um
[22:00] sometimes it's a little premature to try
[22:02] to identify on a piece of paper a plot a
[22:05] plan where the best place for a patio is
[22:07] until the client has a chance to to see
[22:09] it from the you know, from the house.
[22:11] >> Looks like there's another porch at
[22:12] least probably built.
[22:13] >> I'm sorry.
[22:14] >> There's another porch or first porch
[22:16] perhaps already built as well.
[22:17] >> It has a lanai.
[22:19] >> Okay. Okay.
[22:21] Um so, then that's built at grade?
[22:23] >> I'm sorry.
[22:23] >> The porch is built at grade. It's not
[22:25] elevated or is it?
[22:26] >> The the lanai is probably
[22:29] 4 ft or so above grade and then there's
[22:32] a
[22:33] >> Okay.
[22:33] >> Yeah, that that lot has quite a
[22:35] >> Okay.
[22:35] >> it from the back which kind of creates
[22:37] another bit of a challenge as well.
[22:39] >> Okay. And then the new porch or the the
[22:41] smaller one that's the subject tonight,
[22:42] is that also built at grade or is that
[22:44] also elevated?
[22:44] >> That's a
[22:45] >> Okay.
[22:46] >> it's it's just Yeah, it's
[22:48] There's some differentiation there that
[22:50] again, the lanai is probably 4 ft above
[22:52] grade and then has steps going down to
[22:55] meet grade for the for the patio.
[22:57] >> Okay.
[22:57] >> Or really it's a grilling station.
[22:59] >> All right. Thank you.
[23:04] Mhm. Thank you, Mr. Dale.
[23:07] I should note, and Mr. Dale and Mr.
[23:10] Smith, correct me, but since we are
[23:12] short a commissioner tonight,
[23:15] it still would take three votes for an
[23:17] approval.
[23:18] So, a tie is actually a denial. Is that
[23:20] correct?
[23:20] >> A tie is a continuance. It's no It's no
[23:22] >> Okay, it's no action.
[23:23] >> Yeah, no action.
[23:24] >> Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you for
[23:26] that clarification, just so that
[23:28] everyone in the room understands that.
[23:32] Um
[23:33] I invite any discussion.
[23:36] Oh, forgive me.
[23:38] Jonathan,
[23:40] Amanda texted that she has tried to join
[23:42] remotely, wasn't able to get in. So, I
[23:45] don't know if somebody could watch out.
[23:46] It probably is a little situational for
[23:49] her, but if somebody could watch out
[23:52] as she's trying to join.
[23:56] » I would
[23:57] point to IT in the back. Do you have
[23:59] access to the the Zoom link?
[24:02] >> I'm sorry, what was the question?
[24:04] >> Uh we have a board member who's trying
[24:05] to join remotely.
[24:08] Um and somebody needs to allow her into
[24:11] the Zoom link.
[24:12] I believe that link was created by IT.
[24:15] >> Yes, I will work on that.
[24:17] >> Okay, thank you.
[24:18] >> And I
[24:19] um
[24:20] she may have moved on, and I'll text her
[24:22] that you're on the lookout for her uh in a moment here.
[24:26] Uh all right, sorry for the
[24:27] interruptions, please.
[24:30] >> I'm curious how many other homes are
[24:32] built
[24:33] adjacent to this house that that may
[24:35] want to build outdoor, or are they
[24:38] already completed? Was this the last
[24:40] house on the road to be built?
[24:42] >> I don't know the answer to that.
[24:43] Jonathan, do you know?
[24:45] >> Um I don't know the exact I
[24:47] >> I don't know the exact answer. No, there
[24:49] are there are more vacant lots along
[24:51] that the north side of Dartmoor. Um
[24:54] there's
[24:57] four or five built maybe. I got one,
[25:00] two, three, four. I I can see four in my
[25:05] head, so there's four or five anyway
[25:06] that are built along the north side of
[25:08] Dartmoor there.
[25:10] But maybe more, but I can remember that
[25:12] many.
[25:15] » So, Mr. Culpepper reference you want to
[25:18] continuance on this to consult with
[25:20] someone. Is that something you would
[25:21] oppose?
[25:22] >> No, that's fine. I
[25:27] » Question, is this holding up the C of O?
[25:31] >> I don't believe so.
[25:32] >> Okay.
[25:34] >> Um
[25:36] We We We got a conditional C of O for
[25:39] landscaping cuz they closed when it was
[25:41] not landscaped. It's It is now
[25:43] landscaped and I believe we had a an
[25:46] inspection maybe even today.
[25:49] Um landscaping is complete, but um
[25:52] you know, so I I needed I think I had a
[25:54] May 15th deadline to get um
[25:57] you know, for that for the final C of O
[25:59] for landscaping, so we're
[26:02] We got it done and it's inspected. I
[26:04] don't know if there's any comments or
[26:05] not.
[26:07] >> Um okay. I I just don't want to create a
[26:10] situation where you get past the May the
[26:13] May uh your deadline in May. And if this
[26:16] is continued, it'll be continued past
[26:18] that May deadline.
[26:19] And so
[26:20] >> for what?
[26:21] >> You said landscaping, I believe.
[26:23] >> Yeah, it's landscaped.
[26:25] >> This will be continued to June 3rd. So,
[26:27] if you have a deadline that you have to
[26:28] meet by May and this plays a role
[26:31] in that
[26:32] >> I That's beyond me, Jonathan. I I don't
[26:34] know how that how all that's related to
[26:37] be candid with you. I know that on the inspection report, the only thing
[26:41] that was noted was, you know,
[26:42] landscaping, but I don't know the internal
[26:45] >> Is the family living there?
[26:46] >> Oh, yeah.
[26:47] >> Okay, that's all I care about. I don't
[26:48] want to keep a family from moving into
[26:50] their home
[26:50] >> no, no, no, no. I got conditional. See, the house was
[26:54] >> Yeah. was approved fully except for
[26:55] landscaping and that was simply because
[26:57] it was just a mud pile out there. So,
[26:59] yeah, the they moved in with mud, now they've
[27:02] got grass. So, they're all they're all
[27:04] good to go.
[27:05] >> And this is an an open patio. It won't
[27:07] be enclosed or covered. Is that correct?
[27:09] >> Okay.
[27:15] In the petitioner's narrative, they
[27:17] mentioned that they could not find
[27:20] anywhere in the Holiday Farms PUD
[27:24] where this 50-ft setback was mentioned.
[27:27] I went back to look myself. I didn't see
[27:29] anywhere as well where I think most I
[27:32] saw was maybe a 35-ft setback.
[27:34] So, can you explain to me the evolution
[27:36] of this setback? Did this occur during
[27:39] the platting?
[27:40] >> That's correct. So, the the previous
[27:43] gentleman who lives behind this parcel
[27:45] that just spoke kind of shed light as to
[27:48] the creation of this. So,
[27:50] um when the PUD is drafted and adopted,
[27:53] approved, um there was development
[27:55] standards.
[27:56] Um the one in question is the rear yard
[27:58] setback, correct?
[28:00] Um
[28:01] the minimum for the Holiday Farms PUD is
[28:03] 35-ft, right? And historically,
[28:06] developers
[28:07] reflect the minimum, right? You want to
[28:09] have the most buildable area, the least
[28:12] impact, right? And so, they'll they'll
[28:14] reflect that. Um prior to this meeting,
[28:17] I tried to find the research as to why
[28:21] this developer
[28:22] would knowing that it's a 35-ft, go
[28:26] above and beyond and be like, "I don't
[28:27] want to do 35-ft. I want to make it 50."
[28:30] And I was trying to find that
[28:31] conversation that it occurred. I
[28:33] couldn't find it until this gentleman
[28:34] just spoke and his
[28:38] testimony, his his his speech provided
[28:40] light as to why that was done. It was
[28:43] done so that this gentleman's land in
[28:45] the back between him and the developer,
[28:47] he has that additional buffer. Um there
[28:50] is nothing in
[28:52] our zoning standards that prohibits
[28:56] developers
[28:57] from going and doing above and beyond
[28:59] the minimum, right? What we say is if
[29:03] you're going to do that, you have to
[29:04] plat it.
[29:06] And the number that's on the plat that's
[29:07] recorded, that's what we're going to
[29:09] hold you to. So you don't have to put
[29:11] 50,
[29:12] but if you put 50, you understand
[29:15] >> Mhm.
[29:15] >> that that's what we're holding you to,
[29:16] not 35. That's what occurred.
[29:21] » Without digging completely through the
[29:23] Holiday Farms uh subdivision, this is
[29:26] the only 50-ft setback in the for the
[29:29] most part in the entire project. So
[29:31] there's clearly what's concerned
[29:33] for the joining landowner
[29:36] is why this 50-ft building setback. Cuz
[29:38] like I said, I I read that letter and
[29:40] then I went back and read through the
[29:41] PUD and there was the minimums and
[29:43] traditionally developers are going to
[29:45] build where we let them build. So
[29:47] that helps me shed some light onto what
[29:50] where that building setback line came
[29:52] from.
[29:53] >> I guess the only thing I would add to
[29:54] that, and Jonathan, you you'd sent this
[29:56] to me and I happen to bring it with me.
[29:58] Um the actual matrix that they have, um
[30:00] minimum rear setback lines
[30:02] range from 10 ft in section H, I, J, and
[30:06] G
[30:08] uh going to 25 ft in E and F and 30 ft
[30:12] in A through ABCD. So it's that, you
[30:15] know, and again, the the the 50 ft is
[30:17] not even mentioned on this on this
[30:19] matrix, but but they apparently they the
[30:22] rear building setback line can be as
[30:24] little as 10 ft. I don't know if they
[30:25] ever did that or not, but
[30:27] Yeah, but you you provided me that
[30:29] matrix back
[30:31] >> But so it But it was done during the
[30:32] platting process.
[30:34] >> Yeah, yeah, so
[30:36] >> Well, well, the planning commission
[30:37] approved the plat, primary plat. It was
[30:39] on that primary plat that we approved.
[30:42] >> Yeah, um that's exactly right. So, the concern
[30:46] there there's two things. One, the
[30:47] concern should have been raised at the
[30:48] platting plan commission stage about why
[30:50] are you platting such a large
[30:54] in excess of the minimum
[30:56] line. Um
[30:59] I'm I'm not not sure if that question
[31:00] was asked or not, but
[31:02] um
[31:03] it was clearly okay because it was
[31:04] approved, right? Um
[31:08] so so here we are. And the other thing
[31:10] would be you can always amend the plat.
[31:12] Um and despite
[31:15] several, you know, not to jump off into
[31:17] the weeds on that, but um despite
[31:20] numerous petitions, we've we've elected
[31:22] not to amend the plat.
[31:24] So.
[31:28] » And just when when folks buy these lots,
[31:31] they get a copy of the plat. They know
[31:34] this was I mean, they're not I guess
[31:36] they're not buying the lots prior to the
[31:38] platting being done. They're aware of
[31:39] this primary this 50-ft building setback
[31:41] line when they purchase lots. Just It's
[31:44] the same question I bring up every time.
[31:45] >> Yeah, the the recording of the plat at
[31:47] the county is what actually creates the
[31:49] square you'll see on my GIS map. So, um
[31:54] there's nothing to buy until it's
[31:55] recorded.
[31:58] » So, the homeowner and the home builder
[32:01] were aware of the 50-ft setback.
[32:06] >> I don't want to speak to what they're
[32:07] aware to. I just can speak to what was
[32:09] available to them.
[32:11] Um I don't know if they I I don't want
[32:14] to speak to the research or the the
[32:16] level of of research they did. So, I
[32:18] don't want to say that they were or were
[32:19] not aware, but um
[32:21] it was available. It was recorded.
[32:24] Um
[32:25] uh they had access to it if they wished
[32:28] to look at it.
[32:29] >> It is customary during I think the the
[32:30] closing for the the buyer to get a copy
[32:33] of the survey.
[32:34] Um which would show these building
[32:35] lines. Now, as to whether they read them
[32:36] or not, you know, at the closings,
[32:38] um that that's another thing, but that
[32:40] is standard practice to include that
[32:42] information.
[32:43] >> And you would agree that they would not
[32:44] have needed to get a permit to build a
[32:47] patio.
[32:48] >> I'm not sure what our process is in this
[32:49] case, too.
[32:50] For a patio.
[32:52] >> So, there there's a a multi-pointed conversation,
[32:56] right? And I'll I'll I'm going to do my
[32:58] best to summarize it. Um
[33:00] you've always needed a permit to get a
[33:02] pad or a yeah, a permit for patios. That
[33:05] That's That's been a policy that's not
[33:07] changed, right?
[33:08] Um
[33:09] Holiday Farms is unique in that
[33:12] most of the people that you see that
[33:15] have existing patios and things of that
[33:17] nature,
[33:18] the approvals were uh
[33:21] I'm going to say two-phased, right?
[33:23] Phase one, they came through and got a
[33:25] building permit for the house and only
[33:28] the house. And if you look at the
[33:29] permits for these houses, you'll notice
[33:32] that the exterior features. Think of
[33:36] landscaping, think of patios, things of
[33:38] that nature. The exterior features are
[33:40] not included in the submittal for the
[33:43] construction of the house. So, the house
[33:46] typically comes through as one permit,
[33:47] phase one. Once the house is built or is
[33:50] in the process of being built, the
[33:52] owners are consulting with
[33:55] Indy Grills or some other other
[33:57] contractor to essentially put the
[34:01] external components to the house, right?
[34:03] So, now we have phase two. Um and
[34:06] typically these types of issues are only
[34:08] caught
[34:10] um if the external features of the house
[34:14] are under construction at the time of
[34:16] final inspection.
[34:17] So,
[34:18] our inspectors are going out there and
[34:20] they're only looking at the plans that
[34:23] were submitted as part of the house.
[34:25] And if it goes through the entire
[34:27] process and our inspectors look at the
[34:29] house plans, look at the house, that's
[34:31] what was built, they will issue the CFO,
[34:34] they'll give the final inspection,
[34:37] and then as staff, we're done at that
[34:39] site.
[34:40] Now, transition to the second component.
[34:43] Things that are built without permits,
[34:45] things that are built after the final
[34:48] inspection, right? Things that may or
[34:51] may not have been
[34:52] issued permits.
[34:54] We as a office are a complaint-driven
[34:59] code enforcement.
[35:00] What that means is we try to be lenient,
[35:03] we try to give grace, we understand that
[35:06] regular Joes don't know all the building
[35:08] codes or all the zoning regulations.
[35:11] So, what's happened
[35:12] is historically
[35:16] most people haven't asked. They build
[35:18] their house, they get their final CFO,
[35:20] the family moves in,
[35:22] suddenly they want a nice outdoor lawn
[35:25] or patio, and they do it with a
[35:28] contractor that's not included on the
[35:30] permit, right? So, as staff, we have no
[35:33] idea this is even occurring until
[35:36] somebody comes in and asks permission to
[35:39] do something,
[35:40] at which point we discover that there's
[35:42] 17 other people in Holiday Farms that
[35:44] have things that were probably not
[35:46] permitted.
[35:47] But again, we're a complaint-driven
[35:50] office as far as that's concerned. So,
[35:52] that's how
[35:54] you can end up in a situation where you
[35:56] have homes being built
[35:58] with external features.
[36:01] Pick a feature, whether it's a patio or
[36:03] an outdoor kitchen, whatever, and these
[36:05] items are encroaching into setbacks or
[36:10] possibly drainage easements, things of
[36:12] that nature.
[36:13] Um and they're there, and they're
[36:14] existing, and you have petitioners who
[36:16] are seeing these things, and they're
[36:17] like, "Well, I just want what my
[36:18] neighbor has."
[36:20] Well, there's a chance your neighbor
[36:21] didn't ask permission. There's a chance
[36:23] your neighbor probably built in a
[36:24] setback or an easement. And the reason
[36:27] that it's not been an issue is because
[36:29] we have not received a code enforcement
[36:30] complaint. People in Holiday Farms tend
[36:33] to
[36:34] not turn their neighbors in, right?
[36:36] Which is
[36:37] their right to do. So, the only time we
[36:42] enforce these things
[36:45] is when we get a complaint.
[36:47] I hope all of that said, that's how we
[36:50] end up with these situations.
[36:53] >> So, technically they should have gotten
[36:55] a permit.
[36:56] >> Yes.
[36:56] >> Everyone should have.
[36:57] >> Our department has never had a policy
[36:59] where patios did not require permits.
[37:01] It's just often times when they get
[37:04] permits, they don't include the patios
[37:06] on the plans that are submitted.
[37:09] And we go through the entire process, we
[37:11] issue the CFO, we do the final
[37:14] inspection, the house matches the plans
[37:16] we have, and then staff leaves. And we
[37:18] have no reason to go back to that site.
[37:21] And then after that point is when all
[37:23] the landscaping and external features
[37:25] tend to appear on houses, and um staff
[37:29] has no involvement in it.
[37:30] >> I guess my my comment to that though,
[37:32] Jonathan, if if someone's adding
[37:34] something after they take occupancy of
[37:37] the home, that that could be very true.
[37:39] Um I we we don't close houses without
[37:42] patios. I mean, I
[37:44] you know, it's you know, so you know, I
[37:46] mean, I I guess that to to differentiate
[37:48] between what you're what you're
[37:50] describing and and what I'm describing,
[37:52] you know, every house I've built in
[37:54] Pemberton and every house I've built in
[37:55] Holiday Farm, the the patio's been there
[37:57] when we you know, cuz you know, we we
[37:59] know we don't want to be trucking across
[38:01] a you know, trying to get through a 5-ft
[38:03] side yard to pour a concrete patio after
[38:06] the house is built. So, we're we're
[38:07] pouring patios
[38:09] when we're doing driveways. So, I I'm
[38:12] not going to say that people aren't
[38:13] after the fact adding elements to their
[38:16] property, but but I can say that the the
[38:18] 15 I've built in Pemberton and 15 I've
[38:21] built in Holiday Farms.
[38:22] Every patio that that we've installed
[38:25] has been installed when that you know,
[38:27] when the inspection's been done.
[38:29] >> As part of the original permit for the
[38:30] house?
[38:31] >> I I assuming I I just I'd always assume
[38:34] that because of those 30 jobs I've never
[38:36] been asked for a separate permit. So,
[38:39] again, I'm you know, again, I you know,
[38:41] I've been I've owned the company 30
[38:42] years. I don't want to claim ignorance
[38:44] because that would be ignorant, but but
[38:46] I I but I guess my point my point is
[38:49] that um
[38:51] we you know, if if that's if that's been
[38:53] the procedure that that the 30 or so
[38:55] I've built since, you know, 2019 just in
[38:58] those two communities
[39:00] that we've we've always had the patio
[39:02] in. We we won't we can't
[39:04] >> I I I don't think the petitioner is
[39:07] self-reporting anything we need to do
[39:09] code enforcement on.
[39:10] You know, no, what I what I can say
[39:12] we'll we'll bring it back to this
[39:13] petition. What I can say is this
[39:14] petition um you know
[39:17] the the patio was not included
[39:20] in the permit paperwork. It just wasn't.
[39:22] So, that's what triggered the inspector
[39:25] to notice it.
[39:27] Um
[39:29] you know
[39:30] >> What's in front of us isn't a lack of
[39:32] permit. What's in front of us is a
[39:35] request for a variance setback on a
[39:37] patio that is already built.
[39:39] >> Yeah.
[39:39] >> However it got there.
[39:41] Um
[39:42] and I'm just con- this has gone on for a
[39:44] bit. So, I'm confirming my
[39:45] understanding.
[39:47] The setback as recorded on the plat is
[39:51] >> Yes, sir.
[39:51] >> And we have testimony tonight
[39:54] uh is to perhaps the reason why is the
[39:57] adjacent property owner had negotiated
[39:59] that with the developer.
[40:01] >> Yes, sir.
[40:01] >> Okay. So, I view the state of affairs as
[40:06] the remonstrator is said he's against
[40:08] it, but he's willing to con-
[40:09] uh consider he has asked us to consider
[40:12] a continuance so he can think about it
[40:14] more and its ramifications.
[40:16] Um as I am on
[40:19] darn near every setback variance, this
[40:21] is something I would
[40:23] be disinclined to allow.
[40:26] Uh, having said that, um,
[40:28] I invite a motion and the remonstrator
[40:31] has even asked for a continuance and not
[40:32] an actual vote tonight.
[40:34] >> I'll I'm ready to make a motion.
[40:37] Um,
[40:38] uh, for a continuance actually.
[40:40] Um, let me get to terminology so I sound
[40:44] right.
[40:46] I move the docket 202604-DSV
[40:49] Development Centers variance to encroach
[40:51] 3 ft into the 50-ft rear yard setback for construction of a
[40:56] patio at 10850
[40:59] Dartmouth Court be continued to our June
[41:02] 3rd, 2026 BZA meeting.
[41:06] >> I'll second it.
[41:07] >> Thank you, Mr. Martin.
[41:09] All in favor, say I.
[41:10] >> I.
[41:11] >> Any opposed, same sign.
[41:14] Thank you, Mr. Curdale.
[41:18] Okay. Thank you. It's
[41:19] Sorry, it has been continued to the next
[41:21] meeting.
[41:21] >> Okay. Thanks.
[41:28] » Okay.
[41:30] We will now move on to our next
[41:32] petition, which is 202605
[41:35] SE,
[41:36] a special exception pursuant to section
[41:38] 194.07B2A
[41:42] to provide for the use of manufacturing
[41:44] soaps and detergents in the urban
[41:48] heavy industrial I3 zoning district. Um,
[41:52] Mr. Smith, I assume you're taking the
[41:54] staff presentation.
[41:55] >> Yes, sir.
[41:56] >> Uh,
[41:57] yeah, so this this property, 1073
[42:00] Bennett Parkway, zoned I3, and what's
[42:04] unique about this, uh, petition, um, or
[42:07] actually really our zoning ordinance, is
[42:09] even though what the petitioner is doing
[42:12] would fall in the parameters of I2,
[42:17] the language in our zoning ordinance
[42:19] explicitly requires any I1 or I2 that
[42:23] wants to operate in I3, it requires
[42:26] those operations to receive special
[42:28] exceptions
[42:29] approval from the Board of Zoning
[42:31] Appeals in order to operate.
[42:33] That's a little unique, but that's
[42:35] exactly what we're here to discuss.
[42:38] Um
[42:39] Again,
[42:41] from a zoning standpoint, if you look at
[42:42] our zoning ordinance, these
[42:45] this operation would would classify as
[42:47] manufacturing soaps and
[42:48] detergents,
[42:50] which is not explicitly permitted by
[42:52] right in I3.
[42:54] This is a multi-tenant building that was
[42:56] built
[42:57] in 2004. It's a 30,000 sq ft facility.
[43:01] Um the petitioner has provided um if you
[43:06] look at the exhibits, they've provided
[43:08] exhibit nine specifically a business
[43:10] description. Um they've provided a site
[43:13] plan and surveys. If you look at these
[43:15] exhibits,
[43:16] to skip to
[43:18] the staff analysis as far as the
[43:20] comprehensive plan,
[43:22] the comp plan supports office research
[43:25] and technology in this area.
[43:27] This designation is established to
[43:29] promote the development of research
[43:30] facilities, testing laboratories,
[43:33] admin facilities, and other uses, which
[43:37] is important in this case. Other uses
[43:38] such as distribution and warehouse,
[43:41] flex centers and light manufacturing
[43:44] is generally free from ejectable
[43:46] elements such as odor, dust, smoke, and
[43:47] glare
[43:48] um are also encouraged. So, in this
[43:51] case, staff, when we see that, we see
[43:54] what the petitioner is proposing and it
[43:55] aligns with the comprehensive plan's
[43:57] recommendation of light manufacturing or
[44:00] assembly.
[44:01] Um jumping to the second part
[44:05] of our analysis, which is the zoning. Um
[44:08] again, this is I3. It's a heavy
[44:11] industrial zoning classification, uh
[44:13] designed to accommodate heavy
[44:14] manufacturing and processing facilities
[44:16] that require substantial amount of
[44:18] outdoor storage. Uh they require
[44:20] extensive community facilities,
[44:22] um access to what we call arterial
[44:24] streets, which are our our main streets.
[44:26] Permitted uses in this district have
[44:28] excessive outdoor storage and service
[44:30] areas. They generate heavy traffic. Um
[44:33] the petitioner proposal is unlike the
[44:35] heavy industrial land uses intended for
[44:37] I3.
[44:38] Uh the proposed use is not a heavy
[44:40] manufacturing operation operation. Uh
[44:42] it's more closely aligned with general
[44:44] industrial land uses. Um the zoning
[44:47] ordinance identifies the requested use
[44:49] as I2, as previously stated. Uh the
[44:52] proposal aligns more closely with I2
[44:54] zoning districts uses. Um the request
[44:58] for the special exception will allow
[44:59] this to operate in I3.
[45:01] Um
[45:03] skipping through the other um
[45:07] the other criteria as far as driveway
[45:09] location, parking, um external features
[45:12] such as the building character,
[45:13] landscaping. Uh unless the petitioner
[45:16] has changed their mind, I'm not aware of
[45:17] any external features that will be
[45:19] changing to the site um with the
[45:21] exception of possible signage, right,
[45:23] for their business.
[45:25] Um
[45:27] to the questions that we have to answer
[45:28] the findings of fact um related to a
[45:31] special exception, there are three that
[45:34] we have to answer. Number one, the
[45:36] proposed use will not be injurious to
[45:38] public health and safety. Number two,
[45:39] the proposed use will not injure or
[45:41] adversely affect adjacent areas or
[45:43] property values. And three, the proposed
[45:45] use will be consistent with the
[45:46] character of the district, land uses
[45:48] authorized therein, and the town's comp
[45:49] plan. Number one, staff agrees with the
[45:52] petitioner on this criteria. Granting
[45:54] this request will not be injurious to
[45:55] public health and safety. From a use
[45:57] standpoint, their proposal is less
[45:58] impactful than other permitted more
[46:00] intense uses, such as the manufacturing
[46:02] of railroad equipment, farm machinery, or boiler tankers.
[46:08] This building was designed with
[46:09] manufacturing in mind,
[46:11] uh meeting applicable building and fire
[46:12] codes, and supporting adequate parking
[46:14] and loading berths for truck deliveries.
[46:16] Uh the petitioner also completed public
[46:18] noticing. Uh as of this writing, we did
[46:20] not receive any complaints or concerns
[46:21] from the public. For these reason For
[46:23] these reasons, we believe this criteria
[46:25] number one was met. Uh criteria number
[46:27] two, the proposed use will not injure or
[46:29] adversely affect the adjacent area or
[46:31] property values therein. Uh we agree
[46:33] with the petitioner on this criteria.
[46:35] If approved, the use would be confined
[46:37] inside the existing building, utilizing
[46:40] infrastructure already on site, such as
[46:41] the loading berths and employee parking.
[46:43] Uh the building was designed in 2004 to
[46:45] meet development standards of an I3
[46:48] heavy industrial use. Uh their proposal
[46:50] is more consistent with permitted uses
[46:52] in I2, which are less intense
[46:54] uh than those allowed in I3.
[46:57] Additionally, the property is surrounded
[46:58] by other light distribution and medium
[47:01] industrial businesses.
[47:03] Given the existing buffer and the
[47:04] landscaping already on site, adjoining
[47:05] properties are not anticipated to be
[47:07] adversely affected.
[47:09] The petitioner completed public
[47:10] noticing, and as again, as of this
[47:11] writing, we did not receive any concerns
[47:13] from the public. So, once again, barring
[47:15] objections from the public being raised
[47:17] tonight, uh we believe this criterion
[47:19] was met.
[47:21] Item number three, the proposed use will
[47:22] be consistent with the character of the
[47:23] district, land uses authorized therein,
[47:26] and the town's comp plan.
[47:27] Uh again, we agree with the petitioner.
[47:30] The proposed use will be consistent with
[47:32] the character of this district, land
[47:33] uses authorized therein, and the comp
[47:35] plan. Uh the character of I3 zoning
[47:37] district encourages manufacturing, which
[47:40] is exactly what the petitioner is
[47:41] proposing.
[47:42] Their proposed operation is similar to
[47:44] the other manufacturings manufacturing
[47:46] operations in the area, such as
[47:48] Tri-Phase Technologies and Fanimation
[47:50] Fan, which is located north and east of this site.
[47:54] Uh the comprehensive plan
[47:56] designates this area as an office,
[47:58] research, and technology industrial,
[48:01] which is allowed which allows for
[48:03] manufacturing and distribution, again,
[48:05] which is what the petitioner is
[48:06] proposing. For this reason, staff
[48:09] believes the the requested use is
[48:11] consistent with the character of the
[48:12] nearby land uses and also aligns with
[48:15] the intent of the comprehensive plan.
[48:18] Um for those reasons, summarizing, we
[48:20] believe that criterion was met uh
[48:22] because we found in the affirmative all
[48:24] three findings
[48:26] um
[48:27] based on that report, staff staff's
[48:29] position is favorable regarding the
[48:31] requested entitlement. Um a sample
[48:34] motion again has been provided on the
[48:35] last page.
[48:36] Happy to answer any questions you have,
[48:39] otherwise, I'll turn it back to you.
[48:41] >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any questions for
[48:43] staff?
[48:45] Uh seeing none, I would invite the
[48:47] petitioner up, if they're here, to
[48:49] speak.
[48:54] If you would state your name and
[48:55] address.
[49:03] » My name's Ken Woodcox, address 3188
[49:06] Bluewater Court, Newburgh, Indiana
[49:09] 47630.
[49:11] I'm here representing Edward Ivey, the
[49:14] petitioner, and also representing Auto
[49:17] Course System.
[49:19] So,
[49:20] um first, to kind of give some context
[49:23] here, uh want to thank the staff uh with
[49:26] the town and the planning department,
[49:28] kind of everybody that was involved in
[49:30] reviewing this petition
[49:32] um
[49:33] from like I said, the the town planning
[49:35] department from the beginning, the
[49:37] professionalism that was exhibited, the
[49:39] responsiveness, the thoughtful analysis
[49:41] as we really went through this with the city of Zionsville to learn a little
[49:45] bit as well. We've been in
[49:48] We've uh we've looked for property in
[49:49] multiple different areas around the
[49:51] Indianapolis area,
[49:53] um and we
[49:55] each place you go it's a little bit
[49:56] different and you learn a little bit and
[49:58] I I believe the process was actually
[50:01] helpful in the end to help us make a
[50:03] better determination of what we want to
[50:04] do.
[50:05] To give you some context of who we are
[50:07] and what we do, Auto-Chlor System is a
[50:10] nationwide company and we specialize in
[50:13] leasing, manufacturing, and servicing
[50:15] commercial dish equipment dish dish
[50:17] machines and providing cleaning prod-
[50:19] products to restaurants, hotels, health
[50:22] care facilities, schools,
[50:24] and other hospitality institution.
[50:27] For the last couple of decades, we've
[50:29] operated our business in the
[50:30] Indianapolis area,
[50:31] uh most recently on 79th Street in
[50:34] Marion County.
[50:36] Our proposed operation in this location
[50:39] it would be about 12,000 square feet
[50:41] in a 30,000 foot square foot uh
[50:44] multi-tenant uh building.
[50:46] Uh the facility for us would primarily
[50:49] uh serve as a regional hub for service,
[50:52] distribution, warehousing, and
[50:54] administrative operations uh with light
[50:56] manufacturing activities related to the
[50:59] blending of soaps and detergents. That's
[51:01] what outlines us in the I2 parameter.
[51:04] Um importantly, our operation is as as
[51:08] Jonathan said is more consistent with I2
[51:11] light industrial general industrial use
[51:14] rather than the traditional um heavy
[51:16] industrial operations. As noted in the
[51:18] staff report, our operation does not
[51:21] involve heavy outdoor machinery or
[51:23] equipment, um substantial outdoor
[51:26] storage, or any type of unusual high
[51:29] traffic generation, or any type of
[51:31] nuances that generally are common with
[51:34] uh I3 uh heavy industrial buildings and
[51:37] operations. So, think noise, odors,
[51:39] trash. Uh we're not going to bring those
[51:41] to your community here.
[51:43] Um
[51:45] and and and as Jonathan stated, our
[51:47] operation is is is is less than
[51:51] intensive than the the uses already
[51:53] outlined in that I-3 zoning area.
[51:56] Our operations, uh, one of the concerns
[51:58] sometimes is
[51:59] our operation is completely enclosed
[52:02] within the building.
[52:04] In in that building, there's no outdoor
[52:05] storage. We're not proposing any
[52:07] exterior modifications. We're not trying
[52:09] to change any traffic flow traffic flow.
[52:12] We're not trying to modify parking, and
[52:14] we need no additional outdoor storage.
[52:17] The site already contains the
[52:19] infrastructure necessary to support our
[52:21] use, including the parking, loading
[52:24] areas, utilities, and appropriate
[52:26] building systems are already there for what we need.
[52:30] Now, from a community standpoint, um,
[52:32] this is a relatively low-impact
[52:34] facility. We employ approximately 14
[52:37] people in these locations on average
[52:39] nationwide.
[52:40] Uh, we operate primarily during standard
[52:42] business hours. We utilize medium
[52:45] cargo-size vans, like your Ford Transit
[52:47] vans you see on the roads today. This is
[52:49] not a large-scale industrial trucking
[52:51] company uh, that's going in there.
[52:54] Our service employees come into the
[52:56] locations in the morning. They go out
[52:58] into the into the community and service the customers and come back at
[53:02] the end of the day. Our facility is not
[53:04] open to the public. We do not have any
[53:05] type of retail sales, and we have zero
[53:07] customer traffic.
[53:10] We all AutoChlor, we we also believe
[53:12] that
[53:13] we're we would be a strong long-term
[53:15] addition to the Zionsville business
[53:17] community. We take pride in operating
[53:19] professional,
[53:20] well-maintained facilities, investing in
[53:22] our employees, and being responsible
[53:24] neighbors in the communities we serve
[53:26] nationwide.
[53:28] Personally, as an Indiana resident, I'm
[53:30] excited for AutoChlor to integrate into
[53:32] this community.
[53:35] Most importantly, the request is already
[53:36] specifically outlined within the zoning
[53:38] ordinance
[53:39] through the special exception process
[53:41] for I-2 uses within the I3 district. We
[53:44] believe our proposed use aligns close
[53:46] closely with both the intent of the
[53:49] original ordinance
[53:50] and
[53:52] the character of the surrounding area as
[53:53] it is today.
[53:55] We appreciate the opportunity
[53:57] to consider this tonight.
[54:02] If there's any questions regarding this
[54:04] or regarding our business business
[54:06] operation, I'll be glad to answer.
[54:10] >> Commissioner, are there any questions
[54:11] for the petitioner?
[54:12] >> One question, you said blending of
[54:14] soaps. Um
[54:16] does that does that require any exhaust?
[54:19] >> Excuse me?
[54:20] >> The blending of soaps, is there any
[54:22] requirements of
[54:23] like exhaust fumes or anything coming
[54:25] off of that?
[54:26] >> No.
[54:27] nothing of that nature.
[54:28] >> No, it's essentially a
[54:30] These are concentrated products that are
[54:32] blended in stainless steel tanks with
[54:33] water that they come into. So, you're
[54:36] looking at an electric motor that's
[54:37] spinning a little propeller that's about
[54:39] like this.
[54:40] Um there's no exhaust fumes that we're pumping out of the building or
[54:43] anything like that.
[54:45] Great question.
[54:47] >> Um I'm
[54:49] going to note and I've had to remind
[54:51] myself in reading this petition a couple
[54:53] of times.
[54:54] I3 is heavier industrial than I2. I2
[54:58] would permit this use, correct? There
[55:00] would not be any need to apply for a
[55:02] zoning or
[55:02] >> Yes, yes, yes, sir.
[55:04] >> Okay.
[55:05] >> It's a permitted use in I2.
[55:06] >> So, I
[55:07] I've been trying to wrap my brain around
[55:10] why it got written that way.
[55:12] I haven't figured it out yet, but it has
[55:14] been. So, you're here and and thank you
[55:16] for your good nature.
[55:18] Uh but since you're here having to do
[55:20] this, um
[55:21] you've mentioned your organization has
[55:23] operated in Indiana.
[55:25] Um
[55:26] I'm not able to name whatever Indiana
[55:28] department would be concerned about you
[55:30] guys pouring things into the wastewater
[55:33] treatment that you shouldn't be, but are
[55:35] uh
[55:37] are there any uh open
[55:39] uh or recent investigations by the
[55:42] environmental authorities here in
[55:43] Indiana?
[55:44] >> So, one of the thing we've been in
[55:45] business almost 90 years. So, one of the
[55:47] thing we're based out of Mountain View,
[55:48] California. If you could imagine the
[55:50] regulations in California are uh
[55:52] a little different. Um we've So, we've
[55:54] learned a lot along the way. Um and so,
[55:57] what I what I would share with you is is
[55:59] this would be our first manufacturing
[56:00] facility in the state of a production
[56:02] facility in the state of Indiana.
[56:04] Um however, we we operate
[56:07] about 14 or 15 of these across the
[56:10] country in different locations. And one
[56:12] of the studies that we
[56:13] put a lot of work into working with the
[56:15] fire department. We've already been in
[56:16] contact with Ron Lips, the fire marshal
[56:18] here about MAQs and things such as that.
[56:21] Um but we put the same practices that we
[56:23] put into our California manufacturing
[56:25] facilities, production facilities,
[56:27] whether it's secondary containment. We
[56:29] We're monitored by the EPA because it's
[56:32] a sanita- We have sanitizers that are in
[56:34] every restaurant and kitchen that you go
[56:36] eat at today. Um we work with all those
[56:39] in every jurisdiction uh because number
[56:41] one, it's the right thing to do. Number
[56:42] two, it's required in their jurisdiction
[56:45] and what they actually oversee. So, as
[56:47] far as open cases or anything like that, is not the case. We haven't had
[56:51] anything on this side of the country at
[56:52] all. Anything that we have had exposure
[56:55] to would be California based. Um we
[56:57] treat all of our waste water before we before we dispose of it back into the
[57:01] system. Uh that's regulated and
[57:03] monitored where we have to turn it in
[57:05] every every month. Um and any any
[57:08] situations where you're actually having
[57:10] to do more than that, you hire a waste
[57:12] haul facility a waste haul company and
[57:14] they would pull that out. But the type
[57:15] of uh chemicals that you're producing or
[57:18] blending in these locations is the same
[57:20] chemicals you have in your house. So,
[57:22] when it spills on the floor and things
[57:24] like that, it's the same exact chemicals
[57:26] that they're using to clean L Maison or
[57:28] Sweetgreen or wherever right here in
[57:30] this community. So, it's when we're
[57:32] talking about chemicals, these aren't
[57:34] we're not manufacturing new raw
[57:36] materials and extruding them out and
[57:37] things like that. It's really just your
[57:39] common commodities, soaps
[57:41] that you're having today. So, for us,
[57:44] the majority of our wastewater you're
[57:46] testing anywhere between 7, 7.5, 8
[57:50] on the pH scale.
[57:53] >> Thank you. That's all I have for now.
[57:55] Will there be any outdoor storage?
[57:57] >> There will not.
[57:58] Completely contained within the current
[58:00] building.
[58:01] >> Okay.
[58:03] » I I was Jim, I don't know why we have
[58:05] right I guess I know why we have this
[58:09] requirement for my three if it's a
[58:11] compliant in I2, they start to come in
[58:14] front of us. I understand
[58:16] the thinking behind the the standard,
[58:17] but yeah, this is this is pretty simple
[58:20] one for me. I think staff got it right.
[58:22] >> If it was
[58:24] this is
[58:25] entirely no bearing on him, but and I
[58:28] stumbled into this even frankly in the
[58:29] pre-meeting.
[58:31] If this was I2 needing a special
[58:33] exception for something that was by
[58:34] right and I3,
[58:36] I'd have a long list of things I'd
[58:37] require.
[58:38] But, that is this is the more intense
[58:42] industrial use.
[58:43] Um
[58:45] it's um
[58:47] you know, the EPA is is going to get
[58:49] involved if something's going going awry
[58:51] and I don't think anybody wants wants to
[58:54] sign up for that.
[58:56] Um
[58:57] so, now that I've
[58:59] corrected my earlier comments to to
[59:01] before the meeting to staff, I'll I'll
[59:04] invite uh nobody's signed up to speak,
[59:06] but is there anyone online?
[59:13] IT?
[59:14] >> I'm sorry, one more time. I'm dealing
[59:16] with other issues.
[59:17] >> Oh, I'm I'm uh is there anybody online
[59:19] wishing to speak on this petition?
[59:21] >> Um
[59:22] I do not believe so.
[59:24] There is no one.
[59:25] >> Okay.
[59:26] Um
[59:28] looks like I am closing, opening, and
[59:30] closing uh public comment at 7:33 p.m.
[59:34] Uh any further discussion?
[59:38] » I'm in agreement.
[59:40] >> Uh it s- sounds like we're ready for a
[59:42] motion. Thank you all.
[59:44] Well, we'll see.
[59:45] >> I'll make a motion. I move that docket
[59:48] 2026-05-SE,
[59:50] special exception to allow manufacturing
[59:52] of soaps and detergents at 10730
[59:56] Bennett Parkway, Zionsville, Indiana
[59:58] 46077
[1:00:00] be approved as presented and described
[1:00:02] based on the findings in the staff
[1:00:04] report and staff recommendations,
[1:00:06] submitted findings of fact, and evidence
[1:00:07] submitted during the hearing.
[1:00:10] >> Do we have a second?
[1:00:11] >> Second.
[1:00:12] >> Thank you, Mr. Fedor. All in favor, I.
[1:00:15] >> I.
[1:00:16] >> Uh
[1:00:17] any opposed, same sign.
[1:00:20] Thank you all. Congratulations. Welcome
[1:00:23] to the neighborhood.
[1:00:26] Okay. On to the third petition and final
[1:00:30] petition of the evening.
[1:00:32] 2026-06
[1:00:34] DSV, a development standards variance
[1:00:37] pursuant to section 194.082
[1:00:40] table 3 to reduce the 45-ft road
[1:00:43] frontage requirement for property in the
[1:00:45] single-family residential R1 zoning
[1:00:48] district at 6724 West Stonegate Drive,
[1:00:51] Zionsville.
[1:00:53] Uh Jonathan, would you kick it off?
[1:00:56] >> Yes, sir.
[1:00:57] Um
[1:00:59] IT, if you can uh switch the TV to my
[1:01:03] screen, I think it'll be helpful in
[1:01:05] explaining the request.
[1:01:08] Um okay, so yeah, so the the petitioner
[1:01:11] is actually requesting a development
[1:01:13] standard variance um to reduce a
[1:01:16] standard um in 194.082.
[1:01:19] The The requires all of our rural zoning
[1:01:24] properties to have a minimum road
[1:01:26] frontage of 45 ft. The petitioner's
[1:01:29] request is to reduce that 45-ft
[1:01:32] road frontage requirement to reduce that
[1:01:35] requirement down to 20 ft.
[1:01:38] Um and if approved,
[1:01:41] that would allow this parcel uh I
[1:01:44] apologize, I just zoomed in. That would
[1:01:46] allow this parcel
[1:01:48] um as part of his proposal
[1:01:51] to utilize
[1:01:53] what you see um
[1:01:56] which is this access easement. So, the
[1:01:57] 20 ft, that's where that number comes
[1:01:59] from.
[1:02:00] This property is otherwise landlocked
[1:02:04] and as you can see on the screen, cannot
[1:02:06] produce 45 ft of road frontage in its
[1:02:09] current configuration.
[1:02:11] Um going through the staff report,
[1:02:13] you'll see
[1:02:14] um
[1:02:15] you'll see two things that I'll I'll focus on. The secondary plat for
[1:02:18] Stonegate, um as well as the findings.
[1:02:22] Um the the petitioner's narrative does a
[1:02:23] good job of also summarizing this
[1:02:25] request. Um but to speak to the creation
[1:02:29] of the lot, um which I think is
[1:02:30] important in this case, um
[1:02:33] this lot was created in 2004
[1:02:37] utilizing
[1:02:38] um
[1:02:40] what we call it an exemption in the
[1:02:41] zoning language,
[1:02:43] um
[1:02:44] which essentially says if your if your
[1:02:46] parcel your parent parcel existed in its
[1:02:48] current configuration
[1:02:50] as of January 1st, 1999, you're entitled
[1:02:52] to one lot split um without being
[1:02:55] subject to the requirements of the
[1:02:57] subdivision control ordinance, right?
[1:02:58] So, that's important. January 1st, 1999.
[1:03:01] And you'll see on the screen this
[1:03:03] parcel, which was the leftover piece of
[1:03:05] the parent parcel.
[1:03:08] And this parcel, they used to be one.
[1:03:09] And in 2004, the owner at that time took
[1:03:11] advantage of that exemption
[1:03:13] and um
[1:03:15] split essentially this parcel from the
[1:03:18] parent parcel, um thus creating what you
[1:03:21] see today.
[1:03:22] Um although it was done legally and
[1:03:25] recorded at the county through that
[1:03:27] exemption process, it's clear that they
[1:03:30] did not take into account the
[1:03:32] development standards. And because they
[1:03:35] didn't have to go through the SEO review
[1:03:38] and approval process that most
[1:03:41] subdivisions have to do, right? Which is
[1:03:43] through plan commission.
[1:03:45] Um and because the county doesn't have a
[1:03:47] mechanism to prohibit people from
[1:03:49] recording
[1:03:50] these types of lots, right? What occurs
[1:03:53] is people take this exemption, they they
[1:03:55] think, "I'm exempt from the SEO." So
[1:03:58] they just go and they record an um
[1:04:00] an updated legal description at the
[1:04:01] county, which is how the lot is created.
[1:04:03] So it's legally created, however, it is
[1:04:06] non-conforming, right?
[1:04:08] Um and so that's what occurred here. And
[1:04:11] over time, I guess ownership changes
[1:04:12] hands, um and the petitioner is now the
[1:04:15] owner of this property, um although he
[1:04:17] did not create the situation.
[1:04:19] So, jumping uh to the again, to the
[1:04:23] proposal,
[1:04:24] um
[1:04:26] he wants
[1:04:27] a variance to reduce the 45-ft road
[1:04:29] frontage requirement to 20 ft. And if
[1:04:31] you read through the documents, the
[1:04:33] intent, um again, is to utilize this
[1:04:36] access easement that is owned
[1:04:40] by the Stonegate HOA.
[1:04:43] Um and on the recorded plat, it's
[1:04:46] clearly marked for use for 117 and 116.
[1:04:51] But the petitioner has provided
[1:04:53] documentation that shows, um
[1:04:56] in his opinion,
[1:04:58] that he has the right to utilize this
[1:04:59] access easement.
[1:05:00] And so that's the request. The request
[1:05:02] before you is to reduce it from 45 ft to
[1:05:04] 20 ft. It's ultimately the petitioner's
[1:05:06] responsibility if the request is
[1:05:08] granted, right? It's the petitioner's
[1:05:10] responsibility to identify where that 20
[1:05:13] ft comes from, right?
[1:05:16] Um so the request before you is only
[1:05:18] focusing on the reduction of 45 ft down
[1:05:22] to 20 ft. Um approval of this variance
[1:05:25] request does not grant the permission
[1:05:28] the petitioner the right to utilize this
[1:05:31] access easement, all right? It's going
[1:05:33] to be a separate conversation that will
[1:05:35] have to occur between the petitioner and
[1:05:37] Stonegate HOA, okay? So we're only
[1:05:39] focusing on reducing the 45 ft from 45
[1:05:43] ft down to 20 ft.
[1:05:45] Um and then it's the petitioner's
[1:05:46] responsibility to identify where that 20
[1:05:47] ft comes from, okay?
[1:05:50] Jumping to
[1:05:51] the um if you look on page four, you'll
[1:05:53] see the development standards again,
[1:05:55] table three, 45 ft uh in all districts
[1:05:58] including this one, um the petitioner
[1:06:01] provided a
[1:06:02] um a good exhibit uh you'll see on page
[1:06:04] four
[1:06:05] essentially that shows his parcel and uh
[1:06:08] the block A, which is the utility and
[1:06:11] access easement. Um a good exhibit that
[1:06:13] shows
[1:06:15] how it relates to this parcel.
[1:06:17] Page five is a uh is a screenshot, a
[1:06:21] snippet of the recorded plat, and you'll
[1:06:22] note on the recorded plat um
[1:06:26] that it clearly states block A, common
[1:06:28] access and utility easement for lots 116
[1:06:31] and 117. There is no mention of this
[1:06:33] parcel. Um however, there there's other
[1:06:36] conversations to be had as as to whether
[1:06:38] or not this parcel can actually utilize
[1:06:40] the access easement.
[1:06:42] Skipping to
[1:06:45] the findings.
[1:06:47] With a development standard variance, we
[1:06:48] have to answer three findings.
[1:06:50] The grant will or will not be injurious
[1:06:52] to public health and safety, morals and
[1:06:54] general welfare welfare of the
[1:06:55] community. Uh number two the use or
[1:06:57] value of the adjacent of the area
[1:06:59] adjacent to the property uh included in
[1:07:01] the variance will not be affected in a
[1:07:02] substantially adverse manner. And number
[1:07:04] three, strict application of terms of
[1:07:05] the zoning ordinance would or would not
[1:07:07] result in unnecessary hardship in the
[1:07:08] use of property.
[1:07:10] Staff's position on item number one, uh
[1:07:13] we agree with the petitioner. Uh if the
[1:07:15] request is granted, they're still
[1:07:17] required to receive approval of an uh
[1:07:19] what we call an IOP, an improvement
[1:07:20] location permit. Um this ensures the
[1:07:22] development of this site will comply
[1:07:24] with water, sewer, building code, fire
[1:07:26] requirements, etc. prior to issuing the
[1:07:29] certificate of occupancy.
[1:07:30] All these standards are set in place,
[1:07:33] uh intended to protect public health,
[1:07:35] safety, and the general welfare of the
[1:07:36] community. Um additionally, which this
[1:07:39] has since changed, but at the time of
[1:07:41] this writing, I had not heard from um
[1:07:45] any of the members of the public. We
[1:07:47] have since obviously heard from members
[1:07:48] of the public today.
[1:07:50] Uh but at this time we had not, and so
[1:07:52] for the reasons listed uh in our staff
[1:07:54] report, we believe this criterion was
[1:07:57] met. Um and I want to take this time, uh
[1:07:59] before I forget, I just want to point
[1:08:01] out um
[1:08:03] I received several letters. Um some of
[1:08:05] them are attached to the agenda. I had
[1:08:06] time to put them digitally on the
[1:08:08] agenda.
[1:08:09] Um
[1:08:10] some of them I did not have the
[1:08:11] opportunity to put on on the digital
[1:08:13] agenda. However, all of them you all
[1:08:16] were provided copies with. Um
[1:08:18] so they're in front of you if you want
[1:08:19] to take a look at those.
[1:08:21] Um jumping to item number two,
[1:08:24] the use or value of the area adjacent to
[1:08:25] the property included in the variance
[1:08:28] will not be affected in any
[1:08:29] substantially adverse manner. Uh once
[1:08:31] again, staff agrees with the petitioner.
[1:08:33] Uh the property will be developed with a
[1:08:35] single-family residence, uh which from a
[1:08:37] use standpoint is the same as all the
[1:08:39] surrounding land uses.
[1:08:41] Um developing the site would actually
[1:08:43] add value to the property.
[1:08:46] For these reasons, we don't anticipate
[1:08:47] adjoining properties being adversely
[1:08:49] impacted.
[1:08:50] Additionally, again, um this is dated
[1:08:53] because we have heard uh we heard from
[1:08:56] neighbors on Monday and and neighbors
[1:08:57] today, but at the time of this writing
[1:08:59] we had not heard from neighbors.
[1:09:00] Um and so for those reasons, we believe
[1:09:03] that criterion was met.
[1:09:05] Item number three,
[1:09:07] uh strict application of the zoning
[1:09:08] ordinance would or would not result in
[1:09:10] unnecessary hardship in the use of the
[1:09:11] property.
[1:09:12] Uh staff, we agree with the petitioner.
[1:09:14] Strict application of the zoning
[1:09:16] ordinance will result in unnecessary
[1:09:17] hardship in the use of this property. Uh
[1:09:19] again, unnecessary hardship defined as
[1:09:22] all relevant factors when taken together
[1:09:24] indicate the land involved cannot yield
[1:09:27] a reasonable return because of unique
[1:09:29] set of circumstances.
[1:09:31] A claim of unnecessary hardship
[1:09:32] justifying the grant of a variance
[1:09:34] cannot be based on a self-created
[1:09:35] condition.
[1:09:37] Mere showing of economic loss is not
[1:09:38] sufficient.
[1:09:39] In this case, the zoning ordinance
[1:09:41] allows rural properties to be split and
[1:09:43] recorded without a zoning review to
[1:09:45] confirm the resulting properties meet
[1:09:47] development standards.
[1:09:49] This is the case
[1:09:50] uh for this petitioner. Again, it was
[1:09:52] done prior to um
[1:09:55] in 2004.
[1:09:57] And again, based on the above analysis,
[1:09:59] we believe this is not This is not
[1:10:01] believed to be a self-created condition,
[1:10:02] and the owner is facing an actual
[1:10:03] hardship in the use of the property.
[1:10:05] Without the requested variance to reduce
[1:10:07] the 45-ft road frontage, this subject
[1:10:10] parcel cannot be developed in its
[1:10:11] current configuration.
[1:10:13] For these reasons, staff believes this
[1:10:15] is This criterion was met.
[1:10:18] Because we found in the affirmative for
[1:10:19] all three criteria,
[1:10:21] uh staff's position is favorable of the
[1:10:23] requested variance reducing road
[1:10:24] frontage from 45 ft to 20 ft um as
[1:10:27] depicted um on the recorded plat for the
[1:10:30] Stonegate subdivision.
[1:10:32] Uh again, a sample motion is provided.
[1:10:34] Um happy to answer any questions you
[1:10:36] have. Um I will note that
[1:10:38] we have provided a condition of
[1:10:40] approval.
[1:10:42] Um
[1:10:43] the condition being part as part of
[1:10:46] their submittal for the IOP,
[1:10:48] uh the petitioner is required to provide
[1:10:50] documentation that clearly
[1:10:53] shows they have approval from the
[1:10:55] easement owner
[1:10:57] to utilize block A as access for the
[1:10:59] parcel. That's the one condition we've
[1:11:00] attached
[1:11:02] um
[1:11:03] to be submitted alongside their building
[1:11:05] permit when that time comes if that is
[1:11:08] uh if the variance is approved. Happy to
[1:11:10] answer any questions you have.
[1:11:13] » I'm sure there's any questions for
[1:11:15] staff.
[1:11:19] Well, I'm I'm going to jump in with one
[1:11:20] but it may be more for our legal team.
[1:11:23] It feels like I'm being asked to
[1:11:25] consider a hypothetical.
[1:11:28] If this person has legal access to the
[1:11:30] property, would I allow a road frontage
[1:11:34] uh reduction?
[1:11:36] Is it proper that we consider this
[1:11:38] variance request before that's
[1:11:39] established?
[1:11:44] » Yeah, I believe that's a uh
[1:11:48] separate legal matter. The
[1:11:51] uh
[1:11:52] public and owners have a right to
[1:11:53] request a variance and the board's job
[1:11:56] is to just consider the
[1:11:58] uh with consider the evidence within the
[1:12:00] confines of of the variance request.
[1:12:03] >> Uh then I will proceed contemplating a
[1:12:06] hypothetical. Thank you.
[1:12:09] Uh I would invite the petitioner to uh
[1:12:12] come up and uh
[1:12:14] speak. If you would state your name and
[1:12:16] address
[1:12:17] and if both of you speaking, name and
[1:12:18] address for both.
[1:12:24] » Um my name is Morgan Reese. I'm with
[1:12:25] Innovative Engineering and Consulting
[1:12:27] and I'm here with the petitioner Eric
[1:12:29] Meary.
[1:12:30] >> Um
[1:12:31] my my name is Eric Meary. I'm 441 North
[1:12:33] Park, um Indianapolis, Indiana. Used to
[1:12:36] live in Zionsville since I was two,
[1:12:38] however. So, just recently moved.
[1:12:52] » Uh so, first I want to thank you all
[1:12:54] this evening for allowing us to uh
[1:12:56] present our petition for the property
[1:12:58] located at 6724 West Stonegate Drive. Um
[1:13:02] and then so starting just with a
[1:13:05] property overview this larger picture is
[1:13:07] just showing where and Zionsville this
[1:13:09] property is located obviously within the
[1:13:11] Stonegate subdivision to the north is
[1:13:13] the Stonegate Elementary School and then
[1:13:15] the Zionsville West Middle School.
[1:13:18] And you can see from the aerial view
[1:13:20] that this lot as Jonathan said is
[1:13:22] essentially landlocked aside from the
[1:13:24] 20-ft access and utility easement. This
[1:13:27] was indicated as block A in the section
[1:13:29] five
[1:13:31] Stonegate section five uh plat and we
[1:13:36] have historically he the petitioner has
[1:13:39] historically used this block A as the
[1:13:42] ingress and egress for the site.
[1:13:46] Um again as Jonathan said the variance
[1:13:48] of development standards request we have
[1:13:50] is in
[1:13:52] relation to section 194.082
[1:13:56] specifically table three which requires
[1:13:58] 45-ft of road frontage for our site but
[1:14:01] given the circumstances where on we can
[1:14:04] only get 20 ft and that's what we're
[1:14:07] requesting tonight.
[1:14:10] The practical difficulty here arises
[1:14:12] primarily from the platting of Stonegate
[1:14:15] section five. Um I have a document which
[1:14:18] was also in the submittal for the
[1:14:20] supplement to an amendment and in
[1:14:23] article X I'm just going to read part of
[1:14:26] it. Um and this was given to the
[1:14:29] petitioner from the president of the
[1:14:31] Stonegate HOA.
[1:14:32] >> developer of the Stonegate HOA
[1:14:35] um and so it says as a condition to a
[1:14:37] willingness on the part of developer to
[1:14:39] permit the added parcel and I will note
[1:14:42] added parcel is this site and it's
[1:14:44] indicated by there is a legal
[1:14:46] description at the end, um which clearly
[1:14:49] defines added parcel is this site.
[1:14:52] So, to permit added parcel to enjoy the
[1:14:54] use and benefit of block A drive as an
[1:14:58] exclusive means of vehicular ingress and
[1:15:00] egress through the development, the
[1:15:03] owners of the added parcel hereby agree
[1:15:05] to subject the use and development of
[1:15:07] the added parcel to limiting ingress and
[1:15:10] egress to and from the added parcels to
[1:15:12] block A drive, restricting development
[1:15:14] of the added parcel to no more than one
[1:15:16] single-family dwelling and related
[1:15:19] outbuildings and improvements, and the
[1:15:21] powers and authorities reserved to the
[1:15:23] developer
[1:15:24] in article five, um
[1:15:27] as if the added parcel constituted a lot
[1:15:30] within the development. And so, from
[1:15:33] this document, we feel that this It was
[1:15:37] the intent the entire time to have this
[1:15:40] lot part of Stonegate section five. Um
[1:15:43] however, in the recorded plat, it got
[1:15:46] left off for whatever reason.
[1:15:49] Um and so,
[1:15:50] this block A is the only way for Eric to
[1:15:54] be able to get onto his site. There's no
[1:15:56] other alternative access. And so, as
[1:15:59] Jonathan said, that's why we're in this
[1:16:01] situation, and the hardship was created
[1:16:04] not by the petitioner, but by Stonegate.
[1:16:09] So, in conclusion, um we are requesting
[1:16:12] this to be able to build a single-family
[1:16:15] home consistent with the character of
[1:16:17] the Stonegate subdivision.
[1:16:19] Um and we
[1:16:22] will have
[1:16:23] be having strict adherence to the 45-ft
[1:16:26] um severely limits the available usage
[1:16:29] of this lot. Uh it's 1 acre, and so it's
[1:16:32] larger than the other surrounding lots
[1:16:35] in Stonegate that
[1:16:37] are nearby. Um and so, and the Finally,
[1:16:41] the hardship was created outside the
[1:16:43] petitioner's control.
[1:16:45] Uh with that, I'll open it to any
[1:16:47] questions.
[1:16:50] >> Thank you, Commissioner. Do you have any
[1:16:52] questions for the petitioner?
[1:16:54] >> At this time, no.
[1:16:57] » Okay. I would invite you all to take a
[1:16:59] seat. I think we have several or three
[1:17:02] folks that are signed up to speak.
[1:17:04] Um I'll note again, as Jonathan did, we
[1:17:07] have uh
[1:17:08] some letters of remonstrance in before
[1:17:11] us. Some of those people also appear on
[1:17:13] the list to speak, which is their right,
[1:17:15] but not all of them. So, um if you
[1:17:18] haven't had a chance to read those
[1:17:19] letters, uh please take a moment.
[1:17:21] Um I'll invite Maureen Murphy uh to
[1:17:24] speak.
[1:17:32] » If you'd state your name and address for
[1:17:33] the record, please.
[1:17:33] >> Yeah, sure. Maureen Murphy, and I live
[1:17:35] at 6722
[1:17:37] West Stonegate Drive, Zionsville,
[1:17:39] Indiana 46077.
[1:17:42] Would it be possible, Jonathan, um
[1:17:45] just to pull up where I live
[1:17:48] relative to um
[1:17:50] Eric's
[1:17:52] Eric Murray's lot? Cuz it's a different
[1:17:54] Eric.
[1:18:00] » Um IT, if you could switch to my
[1:18:02] computer.
[1:18:03] Thank you.
[1:18:05] Here.
[1:18:07] So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
[1:18:08] believe the parcel highlighted is your
[1:18:10] parcel.
[1:18:11] >> That That's 6722, um
[1:18:14] and then my neighbor, Eric Pollen, is
[1:18:17] the other neighbor in Stonegate who
[1:18:20] shares that um
[1:18:22] that Stonegate-owned uh
[1:18:24] driveway. We use that, too, uh enter and
[1:18:26] exit our
[1:18:28] um
[1:18:29] driveways and garages.
[1:18:31] Um and I and I
[1:18:33] just on the the hardship factor, I mean,
[1:18:36] I think it's
[1:18:37] fairly clear. You take a look at
[1:18:39] Stonegate, it's a master plan community.
[1:18:41] Those are our the lines of Stonegate
[1:18:44] and, you know, they don't have these
[1:18:45] kind of random lots in and out. Um
[1:18:49] and uh when when we purchased our lot
[1:18:54] um I believe Mr. Murray's lot was zoned
[1:18:58] R3.
[1:19:00] Um so, we were
[1:19:01] fairly sure that there wasn't going to
[1:19:03] be a house built behind us.
[1:19:05] Um so,
[1:19:07] yeah, just to summarize, um
[1:19:09] I'm opposing the variance request uh 45
[1:19:12] ft of frontage um
[1:19:15] which is uh
[1:19:16] you know, standard
[1:19:18] uh is for um
[1:19:21] uh
[1:19:21] safety and independent access of of
[1:19:24] residences.
[1:19:25] The application is asking for a 20-ft um
[1:19:29] access easement. Um I do want to note
[1:19:31] that the actual usable drive, and again,
[1:19:34] I know this goes to the hypothetical,
[1:19:36] actual usable drive, I measured it
[1:19:38] several times last week, it's 11 ft is
[1:19:40] the driveway that between my lot and um
[1:19:44] the Pollans' lot. Um you know, it does
[1:19:47] kind of fan out as you get to the curb
[1:19:49] just to have that nice kind of curved
[1:19:50] curb thing, but it's an 11-ft driveway.
[1:19:53] Um
[1:19:54] Stonegate designed that for two
[1:19:56] residences to share.
[1:19:58] Um
[1:19:59] and
[1:20:01] uh you know, we're talking about adding
[1:20:02] a third one.
[1:20:04] Um
[1:20:06] that shared access is
[1:20:08] not designed for that. I'm not really
[1:20:11] sure how a um
[1:20:13] you know, fire truck gets in there or
[1:20:15] all the sorts of things you guys worry
[1:20:16] about with with zoning and why there are
[1:20:18] those laws.
[1:20:20] Um
[1:20:21] there has also not been any clear
[1:20:23] explanation of how
[1:20:25] trash service would work, deliveries,
[1:20:27] utility work. Um you know, I'm thinking
[1:20:30] about where's the mailbox and just all
[1:20:32] the things that are already uh
[1:20:34] going on in that 11-ft drive.
[1:20:37] Um obviously, construction will be very
[1:20:39] disruptive uh to our existing homes, not
[1:20:44] entering our garage. As you can see,
[1:20:46] we're on kind of we call this little
[1:20:47] eyebrow cul-de-sac. It's one-way for
[1:20:49] two-way traffic, a lot of street parking
[1:20:52] there or any um
[1:20:54] you know, there's not much room to
[1:20:56] maneuver there.
[1:20:57] Um
[1:20:59] already narrow.
[1:21:01] And yeah, this is not a small
[1:21:02] adjustment. It's a request to uh develop
[1:21:05] which is what is a fundamentally a
[1:21:06] non-conforming landlocked lot um that
[1:21:09] lacks any proper frontage uh
[1:21:12] depends entirely on shared access and um
[1:21:16] uh
[1:21:17] doesn't meet the basic uh standards. So,
[1:21:20] I respectfully ask that the board um
[1:21:23] uh decline the variance. Thanks.
[1:21:25] >> Thank you.
[1:21:27] Um Mr. Jeff Horton.
[1:21:41] » Thank you.
[1:21:42] I'm here representing my wife and I, and
[1:21:44] we reside at 6101 Morton Road, and
[1:21:47] that's
[1:21:47] >> Full name, please.
[1:21:48] >> Uh Jeffrey Horton.
[1:21:50] >> Thank you.
[1:21:50] >> Did I not say that? Sorry. Jeff and
[1:21:52] Joyce Horton uh residing at 6101 Morton
[1:21:55] Road in Zionsville. We're uh
[1:21:59] two spots uh spots down uh from the uh
[1:22:02] space there.
[1:22:04] And do me one favor, Jonathan. Just zoom
[1:22:06] out one touch.
[1:22:08] So, we can see.
[1:22:11] Yeah, that that's okay. So,
[1:22:13] are you Okay, so you're on my property
[1:22:15] there. And And for the minutes, uh we
[1:22:17] weren't included in the digital, but I
[1:22:19] did turn in a uh letter against it uh
[1:22:22] from Joan Brown this afternoon. She
[1:22:24] chose uh didn't have the ability to come
[1:22:27] with us tonight, but uh, it is included
[1:22:29] in the packet as Jonathan explained to
[1:22:31] us, so.
[1:22:33] Um, our biggest complaint is that it's
[1:22:36] the
[1:22:37] uh, putting a house there becomes
[1:22:39] inconsistent with the property lines as
[1:22:41] you can see and Marine mentioned the
[1:22:43] Stonegate subdivision has a very clear
[1:22:45] uh, outline and predetermined shape. And
[1:22:49] by putting a house at that position at
[1:22:51] the back of our property, so we all face
[1:22:54] Morton Road, which is you're looking to
[1:22:56] the map is to the left. Putting a house
[1:22:58] there could potentially disrupt our use
[1:23:01] of our rule uh,
[1:23:04] property there that is very few left in
[1:23:07] Zion's build. What we're going to take
[1:23:08] use of it as long as we have it, so.
[1:23:11] Uh, that's
[1:23:12] uh, a part of our biggest uh, complaint.
[1:23:15] Uh, I do feel the comment on the
[1:23:17] property value was self-inflicted. If
[1:23:20] you look at the boundaries of Stonegate,
[1:23:22] this is clearly outside of it. It's it's
[1:23:25] an attempt to be part of Stonegate
[1:23:27] without paying the dues and the fees to
[1:23:30] be in the property values to be in
[1:23:32] Stonegate, so it's the old saying
[1:23:34] sometimes if it looks too good to be
[1:23:35] true, it probably is. Uh, it's too good
[1:23:38] to be true to try to get Stonegate
[1:23:41] address and access with a lump like
[1:23:43] that.
[1:23:44] Um,
[1:23:46] the only other comment uh,
[1:23:51] to to reiterate
[1:23:53] the use of our properties could be
[1:23:54] affected by a house back there. Uh, I
[1:23:57] know the neighbors to us have some
[1:23:58] animals and stuff and
[1:24:00] uh,
[1:24:01] we all use our property in varying ways,
[1:24:03] so it a house doesn't fit there
[1:24:05] according to our opinion.
[1:24:08] >> Thank you, Mr. Orton.
[1:24:11] It looks like I've got one more signed
[1:24:13] up to speak in person and forgive me if
[1:24:16] I get your last name wrong, but Mr. Bob
[1:24:19] Einters.
[1:24:20] If Would state your name and address,
[1:24:22] please?
[1:24:24] >> Bob Winters, 6001 Morton Road.
[1:24:29] I first like to thank all of you for
[1:24:31] taking the time
[1:24:33] and the multiple hours and God knows
[1:24:35] through the year how much time you spent
[1:24:37] here, but I appreciate it.
[1:24:40] I have lived at my home, my wife and I
[1:24:44] and our then six children
[1:24:47] since 1987. So, we predated Stonegate.
[1:24:51] We of course predated the Early Learning
[1:24:53] Center.
[1:24:54] We predated the apartments that stand in
[1:24:57] front of us. And I and I will say that
[1:25:01] we actually supported
[1:25:03] Stonegate with some reservations, but
[1:25:05] did not object to it and supported uh
[1:25:09] Dr. Wright's and his attempts there.
[1:25:12] We in fact supported the building of the
[1:25:16] Early Learning Center. A little bit
[1:25:18] chagrined that the tunnel of trees that
[1:25:21] I took care of for more than 20 years
[1:25:23] disappeared despite the
[1:25:25] promises of the school board, but that's
[1:25:27] for another topic for another time.
[1:25:30] And I have some mixed feelings about
[1:25:33] this particular
[1:25:35] property
[1:25:36] that has been proposed.
[1:25:39] First, I actually disagree that
[1:25:42] it's going to help my property value. I
[1:25:45] will say I dearly appreciate having
[1:25:47] million-dollar homes in my back three
[1:25:49] acres, right? Abutting mine, but having
[1:25:53] a home right there, it's just
[1:25:55] incongruous. It's anomalous
[1:25:58] and I don't see how it's going to help
[1:26:00] my property value and if anything, I
[1:26:02] think when it comes to selling our
[1:26:04] property, it may in fact hurt our
[1:26:07] property value. So, I'm concerned there.
[1:26:10] I'm concerned as well that they never came and talked to me
[1:26:14] about putting the property
[1:26:17] uh The school board talked to me about
[1:26:19] putting the property. Uh Stonegate came
[1:26:21] to me and talked to me before they put
[1:26:22] the property.
[1:26:24] Uh
[1:26:24] I have no idea uh what uh will happen. I
[1:26:28] have sheep and goats uh on those back a
[1:26:30] couple of acres and have for years and years.
[1:26:34] Um
[1:26:35] but um
[1:26:36] but but that Yeah, I just I just not so
[1:26:39] sure that it fits as uh
[1:26:42] the former speaker was uh saying um that
[1:26:45] not sure it really fits with
[1:26:47] the um intended use of the land or at
[1:26:50] least as it's being used currently. I
[1:26:52] will say I'm pretty laissez-faire when
[1:26:54] it comes to uh a property owners uh
[1:26:56] owners rights. I'm usually um
[1:27:00] feel that you do what you You do what
[1:27:02] you want with your property. I perhaps
[1:27:04] don't feel as strongly as my colleagues
[1:27:06] uh being against this, but uh for the
[1:27:08] reasons I've just mentioned, it just
[1:27:10] doesn't fit. Uh I will not help our
[1:27:12] property values. It probably will hurt a
[1:27:14] little bit. And um
[1:27:16] at the very least um I would ask that uh
[1:27:20] you have a continuance so that the um
[1:27:23] Mr. Murray uh and I knew his father uh
[1:27:25] and worked with his father
[1:27:27] um could at least talk to us about what
[1:27:29] he's planning to do. Uh
[1:27:31] and but right now I stand not in favor.
[1:27:34] Thank you.
[1:27:36] >> Thank you.
[1:27:37] Uh is there anyone online? Um
[1:27:44] Okay.
[1:27:45] Uh I will close public comment at 8:01
[1:27:48] and invite the petitioner uh
[1:27:51] to address any of the concerns.
[1:27:55] » Um
[1:27:57] I used to pay HOA dues. And since 2004
[1:28:01] till
[1:28:02] I can't remember what year I was paying
[1:28:04] HOA dues. I was also paying undeveloped
[1:28:07] lot maintenance fees. And the Stonegate
[1:28:10] HOA never
[1:28:12] did anything related to
[1:28:14] um
[1:28:15] you know, maintaining the property like
[1:28:16] they do on some of the other other
[1:28:18] undeveloped properties. So, I used to
[1:28:19] bushwhack that property. I'm not sure
[1:28:21] when you bought
[1:28:22] your your lots if you were one of the
[1:28:24] original owners. Um but when I bought
[1:28:26] there was no
[1:28:27] um
[1:28:29] there was it was called the Chamberlain
[1:28:31] parcel. That's how it was positioned cuz
[1:28:33] of the people that owned
[1:28:35] that other parcel or that other that
[1:28:37] first house was the Chamberlain and I
[1:28:39] imagine they were friends
[1:28:40] >> Just real quick, you are addressing us.
[1:28:41] >> Yeah, right.
[1:28:42] >> It's difficult cuz you're answering the
[1:28:43] question.
[1:28:43] >> I just want to make sure I want to put
[1:28:45] that out there.
[1:28:45] >> I'm trying to be respectful, right. Um
[1:28:48] that they were um I think they were
[1:28:50] friends with with the Wrights's and I
[1:28:51] think that they um
[1:28:55] supported the development. I think
[1:28:56] that's how that got into um put in
[1:28:59] place.
[1:29:00] Stonegate is full of multiple properties
[1:29:03] that the only way to get into the
[1:29:04] property
[1:29:06] to the garage is through
[1:29:08] the easement. It's through that the the
[1:29:10] shared drive. Um if you look at the
[1:29:13] other properties along there they were
[1:29:16] all developed
[1:29:18] with their own driveway other than these
[1:29:21] two properties. So, my you know, you can
[1:29:24] assume that well, why is why does that
[1:29:27] other property have
[1:29:29] why do those two properties have that
[1:29:30] shared drive?
[1:29:32] And it's the only reason those two
[1:29:33] properties have that shared drive is to
[1:29:36] access
[1:29:37] my property as well, too.
[1:29:39] Um
[1:29:40] I think there's some conversation about
[1:29:42] the the 20 ft and that comes with the
[1:29:44] utility easement that's part of block A
[1:29:46] as well. And so, that's where the 20 ft
[1:29:49] is coming from rather than just the
[1:29:51] 11-ft driveway cuz there's also an
[1:29:53] easement
[1:29:54] on those two shared properties for
[1:29:57] utilities in block A.
[1:30:00] So, that's where the 20 ft is coming
[1:30:01] from. Um as far as
[1:30:04] properties being landlocked and less
[1:30:06] than 20 ft
[1:30:08] I know we're not supposed to talk about
[1:30:10] other variances, but there are two other
[1:30:12] properties in Stonegate proper that and
[1:30:15] one is being built right now that are in
[1:30:18] that same situation where they don't
[1:30:20] have the 45-ft uh road frontage, 6155
[1:30:23] and I think 6120. Um and 6120 is being
[1:30:27] built right now.
[1:30:29] So, it was an old house that got torn
[1:30:30] down and I don't think they're using the
[1:30:32] same
[1:30:34] um foundation. I think there's a whole
[1:30:36] new foundation that was poured, too. So,
[1:30:40] >> Do you have anything?
[1:30:40] >> Um
[1:30:41] >> Yeah.
[1:30:44] » I was just going to say regarding the
[1:30:45] utilities, we have This isn't what it's
[1:30:48] for, but I just wanted to let you know
[1:30:49] that we have talked to the utilities and
[1:30:51] they don't see any issues with extending
[1:30:54] through the easement because it is a
[1:30:56] utility as well as an access easement,
[1:30:58] so they don't see any issues as far as
[1:31:00] that goes. Um and then also since this
[1:31:03] is zoned as R1, it is zoned to have a
[1:31:05] single-family residential property on it
[1:31:08] and every other property in this green
[1:31:11] area has a single-family residence
[1:31:14] except for this 1-acre property.
[1:31:16] Um and so, yeah, that was all I wanted
[1:31:18] to add.
[1:31:21] » Why was this property not included as
[1:31:23] part of the plat for Stonegate?
[1:31:26] >> My my opinion after going through all
[1:31:28] the stuff is that I don't think Larry
[1:31:30] wanted to spend the money on replatting,
[1:31:33] to tell you the truth, cuz everything I
[1:31:34] mean, it's called added parcel and in
[1:31:37] the the verbiage it says a lot in
[1:31:39] Stonegate rather than just If it wasn't
[1:31:42] going to be
[1:31:43] a lot in Stonegate, they would have said
[1:31:45] separate lot with access through
[1:31:48] Stonegate. And you know, and in all of
[1:31:51] this,
[1:31:52] you know, all of these documentations
[1:31:54] that I have, when I got the property,
[1:31:56] I'm supposed to follow all the
[1:31:57] architectural guidelines. Um there is
[1:32:00] some conversation of um you know,
[1:32:02] whether I'm using Stonegate and um,
[1:32:07] not paying dues. I've I wrote to the uh
[1:32:10] president of the board and I said, "I'm
[1:32:12] I'm fully
[1:32:14] um, would love to make it where this lot
[1:32:17] is required to pay HOA dues cuz right
[1:32:20] now it's this gray area that never
[1:32:24] got resolved when Larry did all the
[1:32:26] paperwork for the development. So, um,
[1:32:30] so I'm I'm in favor of
[1:32:32] having it officially part of Stonegate,
[1:32:34] required to pay the dues. I paid the
[1:32:36] dues for years.
[1:32:38] I don't know what happened, um,
[1:32:40] you know, when my dad t- kind of took
[1:32:41] charge of the property.
[1:32:43] Um, and um,
[1:32:45] whether
[1:32:47] I think he paid the dues, but I couldn't
[1:32:48] find records of them, but I paid the
[1:32:50] dues for years.
[1:32:52] >> As the owner of this parcel, are you
[1:32:53] entitled to use the amenities of
[1:32:55] Stonegate?
[1:32:56] >> Uh, if I pay the dues, yes. It's in the
[1:32:58] documents, yes. Yeah.
[1:33:00] As long as I pay the dues.
[1:33:03] » This Eric, this is never a farm field or
[1:33:05] this is like a the the access wasn't
[1:33:08] designed to be for for farmers to be
[1:33:10] able to gain access in there to harvest
[1:33:12] crops.
[1:33:12] >> Not in any Not in any of the documents,
[1:33:14] no.
[1:33:15] >> Okay.
[1:33:15] >> Yeah.
[1:33:21] And And it does have a Stonegate
[1:33:23] address.
[1:33:24] It doesn't have a Morton Road address.
[1:33:26] It's got a Stonegate address.
[1:33:28] So,
[1:33:30] » Now, as as a lot owner in my
[1:33:32] neighborhood, and as part of my the HOA
[1:33:34] rules in my neighborhood where I live,
[1:33:36] if I stop paying dues, then I get in
[1:33:37] trouble.
[1:33:39] Do you Do you have Is there a similar
[1:33:41] repercussion?
[1:33:41] >> I I think that be-
[1:33:44] And I don't know if I This is just
[1:33:45] speculation, but
[1:33:47] I know that when a HOA when the
[1:33:49] developer hands over the HOA
[1:33:52] to the to the community,
[1:33:54] the HOA community inherits
[1:33:56] all of the deficiencies that the
[1:33:58] developer created. And I don't know if
[1:34:01] they're worried about that. I'm not, you
[1:34:03] know, I I just want to get this approved
[1:34:06] and um be able to either build a house
[1:34:09] there or sell the property to somebody
[1:34:11] else. Um I want to be respectful to uh
[1:34:14] to the Stone- the other neighbors. I
[1:34:16] wanted part of Stonegate. I know that
[1:34:19] there are
[1:34:20] um already some setbacks
[1:34:23] that are required uh in in the property
[1:34:25] since that's a big topic lately today.
[1:34:28] Um I know there are some setbacks. I'm
[1:34:30] willing to,
[1:34:31] you know, accommodate those setbacks and
[1:34:34] um make sure that they're respectful to
[1:34:37] the other owners on the property. So.
[1:34:41] Or the other owners of the next to me.
[1:34:48] » Commissioners?
[1:34:56] I I
[1:34:59] This This is a strange one.
[1:35:01] >> Yeah.
[1:35:01] >> Um
[1:35:04] the uh uh it has an R1 zoning and unless
[1:35:09] legal's going to correct me,
[1:35:11] they have a right to build a house there
[1:35:14] but for
[1:35:15] road frontage.
[1:35:18] He's not corrected me, so I'm going to
[1:35:20] assume that stands. So,
[1:35:22] >> Yeah. I I I bought this property during
[1:35:24] the Homearama
[1:35:26] when the Homearama was in Stonegate and
[1:35:28] there was a big sign, you know, I was
[1:35:30] looking at another parcel in Stonegate
[1:35:32] and it was a postage stamp, right? And
[1:35:35] there was a big sign that says, you
[1:35:36] know, Stonegate, a part of Stonegate, 1
[1:35:38] acre. And Larry walked the property with
[1:35:41] me.
[1:35:42] So,
[1:35:43] >> Sure. I
[1:35:43] >> Yeah.
[1:35:44] I appreciate that and we may have
[1:35:46] more questions for you, but right now
[1:35:48] we're
[1:35:49] addressing each other. So, to me, the
[1:35:51] only thing in front of us is
[1:35:53] that as complicated as some things on
[1:35:55] this are
[1:35:59] you know, we've heard legal say that
[1:36:01] whether or not there's clear
[1:36:03] establishment of their right to the
[1:36:06] shared access, we're supposed to decide
[1:36:08] on
[1:36:09] if we're
[1:36:12] if the three factors are met
[1:36:15] to allow them the variance on the road
[1:36:17] frontage.
[1:36:21] » I would
[1:36:22] say yes.
[1:36:23] >> Well, but at any further conversation to
[1:36:30] Usually, when I get variances in front
[1:36:33] of me, the one that is hard to get over
[1:36:35] is the hardship one.
[1:36:39] You can't build anything on this.
[1:36:41] You can't use the R1 residential
[1:36:46] without a variance on the
[1:36:47] 45-ft
[1:36:49] setback.
[1:36:51] I I understand why the neighbors
[1:36:54] are concerned about the shared use and
[1:36:57] in their view the expansion of of the
[1:37:00] use of of this easement they share.
[1:37:02] I
[1:37:04] don't know that that's our thing.
[1:37:08] » Because it has a Stone Gate address
[1:37:11] and it was sold to be part of Stone
[1:37:13] Gate.
[1:37:14] I don't know what else
[1:37:16] What would be the options for this piece
[1:37:18] of land?
[1:37:20] What else could you do with it?
[1:37:22] >> Which is why I would argue it meets the
[1:37:24] hardship exception.
[1:37:25] >> If if if it was ag zone ground, I could
[1:37:27] say hey, you could farm it. It's not
[1:37:28] even zoned ag. It's in zone R1.
[1:37:31] Um
[1:37:33] as much as I I I
[1:37:37] would say I don't I don't like it, but
[1:37:40] it seems like we've had several type of
[1:37:42] issues like this in the Stone Gate
[1:37:44] development.
[1:37:47] This seems to be another one that
[1:37:50] like Eric said, it sounds like it was
[1:37:53] a deal done that just didn't get
[1:37:54] recorded properly somewhere along the
[1:37:56] way. But, someone who buys a lot has the
[1:37:59] right to have access to their lot,
[1:38:01] particularly if there's already an
[1:38:02] access and utility easement already for that
[1:38:06] lot.
[1:38:08] I don't like it, but it does it fulfills
[1:38:11] the three requirements of our of our
[1:38:13] standards. I think staff did a wonderful
[1:38:15] job of preparing, and I agree with all
[1:38:17] three
[1:38:18] their analysis on this. I don't like it,
[1:38:20] but I agree with it.
[1:38:27] » Well, if no further discussion, I would
[1:38:30] certainly entertain a motion.
[1:38:35] » I'm saying that
[1:38:37] I'll move that docket 2026-06-DSV
[1:38:41] development standards variance to reduce
[1:38:42] the 45-ft road frontage requirement
[1:38:46] to 20 ft in the area of
[1:38:48] block A depicted on the recorded plat
[1:38:51] for the Stonegate subdivision for the
[1:38:53] construction of a single-family
[1:38:55] residence at 6724 West Stonegate Drive
[1:38:58] be conditionally approved as presented
[1:39:01] and described based on the findings of
[1:39:02] the staff report, staff recommendations,
[1:39:05] submitted findings of facts, substantial
[1:39:07] compliance with the submitted site
[1:39:08] plans, and
[1:39:10] the following condition of approval.
[1:39:13] As part of the submittal for an approved
[1:39:15] location permit, the petitioner shall
[1:39:17] provide documentation showing clear
[1:39:19] approval from the owners of the easement
[1:39:22] to utilize block A as access point for
[1:39:25] the parcel.
[1:39:28] >> I'll second.
[1:39:33] » Okay. Um
[1:39:36] I think we'll do a roll call vote on
[1:39:37] this one, Mr. Dale, if you don't mind.
[1:39:39] >> Josh Fedor.
[1:39:40] >> Aye.
[1:39:41] >> Josh Martin.
[1:39:42] >> Hi.
[1:39:43] >> Jim Hurst.
[1:39:44] >> Hi.
[1:39:46] >> Katie Glenn.
[1:39:47] >> Hi.
[1:39:48] >> Four approved.
[1:39:51] >> Thank you very much.
[1:39:56] » Okay.
[1:39:59] We are on to other matters to be
[1:40:03] considered.
[1:40:05] Uh
[1:40:05] a discussion on unnecessary hardship and
[1:40:08] practical difficulty.
[1:40:10] Um
[1:40:11] I raised this at our last BZA meeting.
[1:40:15] Um
[1:40:17] I love that you guys are catching up.
[1:40:19] We'll let you get out of the room. Thank
[1:40:20] you.
[1:40:24] I raised this at the last BZA meeting
[1:40:26] because I
[1:40:28] in my opinion at times we get boxed in
[1:40:32] on things that are probably
[1:40:35] good for the community but don't meet
[1:40:37] the technical definition of hardship.
[1:40:41] Um this came up before I was on BZA.
[1:40:47] Plan Commission forwarded it to Town
[1:40:49] Council without talking to anyone on
[1:40:52] BZA, which was a faux pas.
[1:40:55] Um and BZA raised their hand and said
[1:40:58] we're we're not sure
[1:41:00] that we think this is necessary. So Town
[1:41:02] Council reasonably
[1:41:04] but declined to move forward with it.
[1:41:07] Now having lived with this uh hardship
[1:41:10] for a year and a half uh
[1:41:13] or so that I've been on the the BZA, I
[1:41:15] would ask that we reconsider this again.
[1:41:18] And if we have um
[1:41:20] I will say philosophical agreement uh
[1:41:23] that it's something that the Plan
[1:41:25] Commission should consider again
[1:41:28] forwarding to Town Council that they
[1:41:30] would at least know that they had the
[1:41:31] support or not
[1:41:33] of the BZA.
[1:41:35] Uh
[1:41:36] and so in a moment I'll invite Mike or
[1:41:38] Jonathan whoever might be
[1:41:42] taking us through the document to go
[1:41:43] through it but
[1:41:45] I would be hesitant to try to reach any
[1:41:47] resolution tonight especially missing
[1:41:49] our chair.
[1:41:52] >> Just a little background it was about a
[1:41:53] year and a half ago
[1:41:55] when the plan commission forwarded a
[1:41:56] favorable recommendation
[1:41:59] five in favor zero opposed
[1:42:02] to the town council to replace
[1:42:05] unnecessary hardship which is the
[1:42:06] current standard with practical
[1:42:08] difficulty.
[1:42:11] With regard to development standards
[1:42:12] variances
[1:42:14] in addition to that replacing
[1:42:17] unnecessary hardship with practical
[1:42:19] difficulty
[1:42:20] the proposed ordinance also added
[1:42:22] definitions for practical difficulty and
[1:42:25] unnecessary hardship.
[1:42:28] Few months later
[1:42:29] the town council voted to reject. That
[1:42:33] ordinance amendment stating that the
[1:42:36] ordinance was overly broad when
[1:42:38] considering both the rural and urban
[1:42:40] zoning districts. So I think that's a
[1:42:42] help for
[1:42:43] us if we want to you know
[1:42:47] revisit this topic the town council
[1:42:49] seemed to sense that there ought to be a
[1:42:50] distinction
[1:42:52] perhaps between the rural and urban
[1:42:54] areas or in other words maybe
[1:42:57] unnecessary hardship would apply to the
[1:42:59] urban
[1:43:00] areas and practical difficulty to the
[1:43:02] rural just as an example not sure if
[1:43:03] that's where you want to go.
[1:43:05] And then so the council rejected it and
[1:43:09] the plan commission took no further
[1:43:10] action. So the council's decisions you
[1:43:12] know stayed
[1:43:14] with that decision. So
[1:43:16] that's where we are. I think that you
[1:43:17] may have I'm not sure Jonathan if we
[1:43:19] handed out you know definitions for
[1:43:21] practical difficulty and hardship or if
[1:43:23] you want to put that on the screen
[1:43:25] that might be helpful too depending on
[1:43:26] how you want to carry this conversation.
[1:43:35] » My team will switch to my computer. We
[1:43:37] can put it on the screen.
[1:43:39] Thank you.
[1:43:40] >> Let Jonathan go here and then
[1:43:43] >> If you can zoom in on that, Jonathan.
[1:43:45] Make it larger for us.
[1:43:47] There you go. That's much better.
[1:43:51] There you go.
[1:43:53] Yeah.
[1:44:01] Understanding too that, you know,
[1:44:02] depending on what the conversation this
[1:44:04] evening, you may want to direct staff to
[1:44:05] do some research.
[1:44:07] Um you know, whatever whatever you need
[1:44:09] uh to to move this forward if you decide
[1:44:11] to move forward on this topic.
[1:44:16] » So, I've been involved with this since
[1:44:18] it first came and then we we decided
[1:44:22] we we got a little wishy-washy on it.
[1:44:24] And I I'd said at the time at Planning
[1:44:27] Commission
[1:44:29] um after we were rejected by Town
[1:44:30] Council not to pursue any further
[1:44:33] at that time
[1:44:35] I said, "Let's give it a year or let's
[1:44:37] let me get some some time under my
[1:44:39] eyes." Fairly new to the BZA as well as
[1:44:41] Jim Jim came on not too far after I did.
[1:44:44] Uh we've both sat on this thing now for
[1:44:46] over a year, seen some stuff come in
[1:44:47] front of us.
[1:44:49] Um
[1:44:51] unnecessary hardship was the default
[1:44:54] that I felt like we need to be at at
[1:44:56] that time. However, going through it
[1:44:58] throughout the year, I definitely think
[1:44:59] that
[1:45:01] uh practical difficulty needs to be
[1:45:02] applied in certain areas of our
[1:45:04] community for and and that's
[1:45:07] something I'd like for staff to kind of
[1:45:08] delve a little bit further into.
[1:45:10] Um as well as, you know, a a special
[1:45:13] exemption may be something we would want
[1:45:14] to keep unnecessary hardship levels on.
[1:45:17] Uh where we would not want to for a
[1:45:19] development standard variance. We may
[1:45:21] want to keep practical difficult So,
[1:45:24] may maybe if you guys can do a little
[1:45:25] homework on that end and tell it kind of
[1:45:27] give us some guidance on how to go that
[1:45:29] direction with it. That's kind of where
[1:45:31] I'm at with it. But, I definitely think
[1:45:33] we need to to re- revisit this subject
[1:45:36] after going through what I have in the
[1:45:37] last year and
[1:45:39] saying no to some people who I really
[1:45:41] wish I could have said yes to. But, our
[1:45:43] standards are pretty clear.
[1:45:45] >> Also, I should mention that that I think
[1:45:48] the statute
[1:45:49] or at least most communities use the um
[1:45:52] the uh practical difficulty
[1:45:55] uh finding. But, with the And look,
[1:45:57] correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
[1:45:58] that the uh you know, Zionsville chose
[1:46:00] the the higher, more rigorous standard
[1:46:02] of unnecessary hardship.
[1:46:03] >> Yeah,
[1:46:04] local jurisdictions have the authority
[1:46:06] to be more restrictive
[1:46:08] um in adopting
[1:46:11] uh unnecessary hardship is a use
[1:46:15] variance standard. It's easy to
[1:46:17] understand
[1:46:19] the property can't re- it you're That's
[1:46:21] where somebody comes in and wants to put
[1:46:23] a business
[1:46:24] y- have a business use in a
[1:46:26] residentially owned residentially zoned
[1:46:29] area.
[1:46:31] You can wrap your head around
[1:46:33] um in that in the use context, it's all
[1:46:37] of the case law in Indiana
[1:46:39] is interpreting what unnecessary
[1:46:41] hardship means. And when cases get
[1:46:43] appealed to court, then it goes up to
[1:46:45] the court of appeals after a board of
[1:46:46] zoning appeals hearing,
[1:46:48] those are all in the context of use
[1:46:50] variances, not development standard
[1:46:52] variances.
[1:46:53] So, it it makes
[1:46:55] difficult.
[1:46:57] Ultimately, the board of zoning appeals
[1:46:58] is quasi-judicial.
[1:47:00] And
[1:47:02] you c- you call it uh you as as long as
[1:47:06] you make the findings appropriately,
[1:47:11] uh you you call whether it's a a ball or
[1:47:14] a strike. So, you can get there
[1:47:17] through unnecessary hardship. It's just
[1:47:20] um it's just it's difficult. And And
[1:47:23] really, in explaining the differences between
[1:47:28] unnecessary hardship and practical diff-
[1:47:29] difficulties, it's a matter of degree.
[1:47:32] Um,
[1:47:34] but
[1:47:36] it's um it's it's
[1:47:39] in the time that we've been helping and
[1:47:41] representing um
[1:47:43] this board and and the planning
[1:47:45] department, um
[1:47:48] it it's not unusual in
[1:47:50] most jurisdictions, it's even a good
[1:47:51] practice to
[1:47:53] annually review the types of cases that
[1:47:56] are coming through
[1:47:58] and
[1:47:59] what are the
[1:48:01] issues that are are hanging up the board
[1:48:04] and then doing exactly what you're doing
[1:48:06] and revisiting
[1:48:07] I mean, judges have judic- they have
[1:48:10] judicial conferences and and bodies
[1:48:12] where they
[1:48:13] you know, judges are charged by the
[1:48:14] Indiana legislature with statutes without sometimes without
[1:48:19] guidelines or or explanatory um
[1:48:22] other than
[1:48:24] judges discussions in other cases.
[1:48:26] And you know, they can make
[1:48:28] recommendations to the legislature for
[1:48:31] you know, requested changes to make
[1:48:32] their jobs easier.
[1:48:34] So, it's it's a
[1:48:36] um
[1:48:37] in my mind, and this is just my personal
[1:48:39] opinion, the use variance definition
[1:48:44] that the
[1:48:45] are
[1:48:46] well stated in in the staff reports and
[1:48:49] that come up
[1:48:51] at that standard, I don't
[1:48:54] know how a development standard can ever
[1:48:57] be granted because
[1:48:59] it's a just
[1:49:01] they they want to change a a setback for
[1:49:03] a patio.
[1:49:05] Well, the house can obviously still be
[1:49:06] used for residential purposes because
[1:49:09] it's for a house, there's a house there.
[1:49:11] It's just those
[1:49:13] So, it's um
[1:49:15] it but
[1:49:16] that that's a legislative decision that
[1:49:18] the the town council under its authority
[1:49:21] has they
[1:49:22] So, what Mr. Frodo mentioned
[1:49:25] it might make sense to
[1:49:28] um have you can the
[1:49:31] under its legislative authority the town
[1:49:32] council could approve
[1:49:34] uh a different standard depending on uh
[1:49:37] for development standard variances in
[1:49:39] different parts of of the town.
[1:49:42] And that would probably make you still
[1:49:43] have the uh
[1:49:45] you know, there are
[1:49:48] good examples.
[1:49:51] I mean, one way I think of practical
[1:49:53] difficulties in the jurisdictions that
[1:49:55] we represent on development standards is
[1:49:58] it's almost more of a
[1:50:00] uh
[1:50:01] there's still a healthy dose of was it
[1:50:03] self-created
[1:50:05] um
[1:50:06] and is it purely economic?
[1:50:09] But it it's practical difficulties is
[1:50:11] more of a reasonableness standard and it
[1:50:14] and really in the cases that
[1:50:16] um I've sat in on where you've granted
[1:50:20] that and gotten there through the the
[1:50:22] stricter um
[1:50:24] unnecessary hardship
[1:50:26] the board discussion and the findings
[1:50:27] are
[1:50:29] the peculiarities to the topography or the presence of utility easements
[1:50:35] that prevent the the development and the
[1:50:37] use of the property, but
[1:50:39] um
[1:50:41] yeah, it's
[1:50:42] I've
[1:50:43] come to meetings I'll go back and joke
[1:50:45] with Dan and I'm like
[1:50:47] unnecessary hardship is
[1:50:49] really tough for development standards
[1:50:51] that it makes it really hard for you
[1:50:52] guys as the judges.
[1:50:55] » When I said let's revisit, I didn't
[1:50:57] realize I was making it a lot harder on
[1:50:58] myself. I went last year, but it it
[1:51:03] you know
[1:51:04] to the point uh that I
[1:51:07] think was made
[1:51:09] you you can navigate
[1:51:11] if you really want to, you can find a
[1:51:13] way to navigate around that necessary
[1:51:15] hardship, but you have to really want
[1:51:16] to.
[1:51:18] And I'm missing a big data point, and
[1:51:20] I'm not I don't want to speak for staff,
[1:51:22] and I certainly don't
[1:51:25] I'm not seating the responsibility for
[1:51:26] me to understand what's in front of me
[1:51:29] or my authority,
[1:51:31] but the unnecessary hardship standard,
[1:51:33] I think
[1:51:35] at times, and maybe often times, has
[1:51:38] town staff
[1:51:40] recommending that we disallow something
[1:51:44] that they were really kind of okay with,
[1:51:46] but they weren't willing to do the hoop
[1:51:48] jump and the stretches necessary to make
[1:51:50] the unnecessary hardship argument.
[1:51:52] And so I I don't know that we always get
[1:51:55] a clear view
[1:51:56] from staff as to whether or not they
[1:51:58] think this is appropriate for the
[1:52:00] community
[1:52:02] or and fair to the the the neighbors and
[1:52:04] the the landowner
[1:52:06] on the unnecessary hardship standard.
[1:52:08] And so I'm missing a data data point.
[1:52:10] >> But it is also the petitioner's
[1:52:12] responsibility to prove their hardship
[1:52:14] to us. Staff has given us their
[1:52:15] recommendations,
[1:52:17] but I also don't think it needs to go to
[1:52:18] the level where someone needs to hire a
[1:52:19] counsel to try to prove to us something.
[1:52:23] Um so like I said, I think it's
[1:52:25] something we do need to revisit. I would
[1:52:27] look forward to seeing what staff comes
[1:52:28] up with for us.
[1:52:30] Um so and then I would assume the next
[1:52:32] step in this is this something that the
[1:52:34] planning commission does,
[1:52:36] or is this something we recommend to
[1:52:38] town I I I can't remember the steps in
[1:52:40] the process. So we
[1:52:42] going to recommend a change to the
[1:52:43] planning commission, planning commission
[1:52:45] then recommends it to town council? Is
[1:52:46] that how this works?
[1:52:47] >> I think it'd be helpful to have a
[1:52:48] proposal.
[1:52:49] >> Or is it Yeah, from our end?
[1:52:51] >> Yes.
[1:52:51] >> Okay.
[1:52:52] >> Uh to the planning commission.
[1:52:53] Um for them to to weigh.
[1:52:56] >> technically it's the planning commission
[1:52:57] that would be making the changes for us
[1:52:59] and then referring it on to town
[1:53:00] council.
[1:53:03] Well,
[1:53:04] >> if you could uh kind of reiterate what
[1:53:07] you would like staff to deliver to you.
[1:53:08] >> Uh some you know, something that breaks
[1:53:11] down
[1:53:12] where staff feels that we would want to
[1:53:14] put not
[1:53:17] I don't want to put staff in that
[1:53:18] position too much, but
[1:53:20] some sort of breakdown between rural and urban with practical difficulty and
[1:53:25] unnecessary hardship in all of our case
[1:53:29] types where we are currently using
[1:53:31] unnecessary hardship.
[1:53:34] So,
[1:53:35] uh for example, I think we had it's it's
[1:53:37] part of a special exemption. It's part
[1:53:39] of a development standard variance, but
[1:53:43] I guess
[1:53:46] Well, realistically, I just need to go
[1:53:47] home and do my homework and think
[1:53:48] through this. To be you know,
[1:53:51] but some some sort of guidance on
[1:53:58] here's how this would apply in a rural
[1:54:00] setting, here's how it would apply in a
[1:54:02] urban setting.
[1:54:04] Or am I asking just kind of my brain's
[1:54:07] thinking and I need to get like I said,
[1:54:09] go home and think through this?
[1:54:10] >> development standard variances
[1:54:12] >> Yeah.
[1:54:12] >> those really feel like practical
[1:54:14] difficulty.
[1:54:15] >> Yes, they do. Yes.
[1:54:18] >> I'll just get to examples. Lot coverage.
[1:54:23] But where where do you put lot coverage?
[1:54:25] >> yeah, in the urban off the off the cuff,
[1:54:27] I'd say urban we'd want to stay
[1:54:30] unnecessary hardship.
[1:54:32] >> Well, can you imagine a lot coverage
[1:54:33] issue in rural?
[1:54:37] That you wouldn't want hardship to be
[1:54:38] at.
[1:54:40] >> You're right.
[1:54:43] » I guess let me ask this question of
[1:54:45] legal. If
[1:54:46] >> I got to think
[1:54:47] >> No, it's If we if we lower it to
[1:54:49] practical difficulty
[1:54:51] for development standard variances
[1:54:54] I'm going to argue with the lower.
[1:54:56] >> Or or yeah, if we change it. Yeah.
[1:54:57] >> If if we allow a little more discretion
[1:55:00] >> in how we reach our decision.
[1:55:02] >> That's what I'm trying to get to. So,
[1:55:03] with practical difficulty, a petition
[1:55:06] could meet all criteria,
[1:55:09] but the BZA still has the discretion to
[1:55:12] deny.
[1:55:13] >> Correct.
[1:55:14] >> All right. And And so, in that context,
[1:55:16] this is my opinion. In that context,
[1:55:18] that discretion gives you the ability to
[1:55:21] look at everything on a case-by-case
[1:55:24] basis. We don't necessarily need to
[1:55:28] change it urban versus rural. What we
[1:55:31] need to do is change it based off the
[1:55:32] category. Development standard variances
[1:55:35] across the board
[1:55:37] should be practical difficulty,
[1:55:39] which gives y'all afforded y'all the
[1:55:40] right to have discretion on a
[1:55:42] case-by-case-by-case-by-case basis. Some
[1:55:44] will be urban, some will be rural, but
[1:55:46] y'all have that discretion. Y'all retain
[1:55:47] that discretion.
[1:55:48] >> And I appreciate you making that point.
[1:55:50] We're not actually giving away the
[1:55:52] ability to say meets all three
[1:55:54] standards, think it's wrong for
[1:55:55] Zionsville, no.
[1:55:57] >> I don't think we need to have the
[1:55:57] conversation or dive that deep
[1:56:00] >> into urban versus rural and and this one
[1:56:02] has this standard and that one has that.
[1:56:04] I think that we just set the standard.
[1:56:05] It's practical difficulty.
[1:56:06] >> us for with that with that
[1:56:11] » Yeah.
[1:56:11] >> caveat, I guess.
[1:56:12] >> I I was not at the Town Council meeting.
[1:56:14] I don't know the discussion that
[1:56:15] occurred, but that would That would be
[1:56:17] my argument is,
[1:56:18] you know, the BZA members are the ones
[1:56:20] that are, you know, making the
[1:56:22] decisions. They're the ones that are in
[1:56:23] the weeds of this thing.
[1:56:25] Um what y'all need is discretion and
[1:56:28] y'all need flexibility to look at each
[1:56:30] case on a case-by-case basis and make
[1:56:32] the decision that y'all feels right in
[1:56:34] that moment for that petition. That's
[1:56:37] often going to be urban, that's often
[1:56:38] going to be rural, but we shouldn't
[1:56:40] break it down that way. We should just
[1:56:41] allow y'all to have that discretion.
[1:56:43] Make it practical difficulty for
[1:56:44] development standard variances only,
[1:56:47] and that gives you the discretion every
[1:56:48] petition,
[1:56:50] understanding that if you don't like it,
[1:56:51] you can still deny it.
[1:56:53] >> Yes.
[1:56:54] Uh the Does this amount of discretion
[1:56:56] change
[1:56:58] whether the BZA is using unnecessary
[1:57:00] hardship or practical difficulty?
[1:57:04] >> No, it it is still the collective decision of the board as
[1:57:08] long as they make the findings
[1:57:10] uh
[1:57:11] appropriately.
[1:57:12] And that there's evidence in the record
[1:57:14] to support the judgment.
[1:57:17] >> As it sounded like we were saying that
[1:57:18] under the practical difficulty standard
[1:57:22] the project may actually meet those
[1:57:23] criteria, but the BZA can still vote no.
[1:57:26] Is that a Is that an incorrect
[1:57:28] >> Yes, uh absolutely. Yeah,
[1:57:31] the development standard variances are
[1:57:33] under practical difficulties are
[1:57:36] denied all the time.
[1:57:38] >> Okay, but but not so as under
[1:57:41] unnecessary hardship.
[1:57:45] » No, it's still I mean, the
[1:57:49] as as
[1:57:51] and I'm I'm just to explain
[1:57:54] the way
[1:57:56] we look at our job is to
[1:57:58] protect the board
[1:58:00] um from appeals to to courts.
[1:58:03] So, that's why I keep saying as long as
[1:58:05] you
[1:58:06] deliberate properly and make your
[1:58:09] findings and that the that the decision
[1:58:11] is made appropriately
[1:58:13] when I
[1:58:14] it is
[1:58:16] that's the best way to to prevent
[1:58:18] yourself from being overturned if a if a
[1:58:20] decision from here gets appealed to the
[1:58:23] to circuit court.
[1:58:25] >> So, the decision of the BZA should be
[1:58:27] supported by the findings.
[1:58:28] >> Yes.
[1:58:29] >> And and whether it's practical
[1:58:30] difficulty or unnecessary unnecessary
[1:58:32] >> right?
[1:58:33] But
[1:58:34] >> It's but the findings for practical
[1:58:36] >> Right, but it it yes.
[1:58:37] Yeah, practical diffi- practical
[1:58:39] difficulties is a
[1:58:42] Well,
[1:58:43] that goes back to my original point.
[1:58:44] It's it's
[1:58:46] development standards are different than
[1:58:48] use.
[1:58:49] So, it's
[1:58:51] practical diff- and by statute, it's
[1:58:53] practical difficulties for development
[1:58:55] standards. It's not unnecessary
[1:58:57] hardship.
[1:59:01] » Just to clarify, changing the standard
[1:59:04] practical difficulty and unnecessary
[1:59:05] hardship,
[1:59:06] one or the other doesn't take away or
[1:59:08] add to the discretion that they have on
[1:59:10] a case-by-case basis. You still have the
[1:59:12] same level of discretion. What it does
[1:59:14] change
[1:59:15] is the I'm going to use the word
[1:59:17] easiness, the ease in which a petitioner
[1:59:20] can meet the standard. Right? So, right
[1:59:23] now it's very challenging for a
[1:59:24] petitioner to meet the unnecessary
[1:59:25] hardship standard,
[1:59:26] but if they by some miracle do meet that
[1:59:28] standard, y'all still have the
[1:59:30] discretion to deny.
[1:59:32] With practical difficulty,
[1:59:34] it's easier to meet that standard,
[1:59:36] right? For the petitioner, which gives
[1:59:38] y'all the ability to approve something
[1:59:39] if y'all choose so choose to do so.
[1:59:41] Um whereas historically,
[1:59:43] it was very challenging to reach the
[1:59:46] unnecessary hardship standard. So, if
[1:59:47] y'all wanted to approve something, y'all
[1:59:48] couldn't because they couldn't get there
[1:59:49] anyway.
[1:59:52] Does that make sense? It's easier for
[1:59:53] the petitioner to get to the standard,
[1:59:55] and then once they're at the standard,
[1:59:57] then it's up to y'all to approve or deny
[1:59:59] it. Y'all don't Y'all aren't giving or
[2:00:01] taking away any more levels of
[2:00:02] discretion.
[2:00:04] It's just easier for y'all to be able to
[2:00:06] approve something if you choose to do so
[2:00:08] because the petitioner can get to the
[2:00:10] standard easier.
[2:00:11] >> Well, it
[2:00:12] But I agree
[2:00:14] with what you're saying conceptually. I
[2:00:16] think legal counsel Mr. Dale's point is
[2:00:20] if we want to not get overturned in
[2:00:21] court, we still need to fail something
[2:00:23] on one of the factors
[2:00:25] >> Oh, yeah.
[2:00:25] >> before we pass it.
[2:00:26] >> Or approve it on the factors.
[2:00:27] >> So, it Well, earlier I had said I could
[2:00:29] not meet all three factors, just think
[2:00:31] it's wrong for Zionsville, and off I go.
[2:00:33] That would be
[2:00:34] a bad idea, so I won't do that.
[2:00:38] Not until it's my last meeting.
[2:00:40] >> I got a I got a question on the
[2:00:41] >> Party shot.
[2:00:42] >> on the process we go through with this.
[2:00:44] So, like I said, we're going to
[2:00:46] recommend this planning commission. Will
[2:00:47] there be public comment at the planning
[2:00:49] commission
[2:00:50] level? So, if there's people from the
[2:00:52] community who have concerns
[2:00:53] >> an advertised hearing item.
[2:00:54] >> Okay.
[2:00:55] >> Yeah. It's a public hearing.
[2:00:56] >> Yeah, I just want to make sure we do
[2:00:58] have allow the public a chance to to
[2:01:00] provide some input on this.
[2:01:01] >> Do you want us to visit use variances
[2:01:04] and as well as DSVs?
[2:01:06] Or if this focus on DSVs?
[2:01:08] >> Let's focus on DSVs right now. I think
[2:01:10] we got our hands full with that.
[2:01:11] >> Yeah, let's get the elephant in the
[2:01:12] room.
[2:01:12] >> one bite at a time. Let's see if we can
[2:01:15] >> Okay.
[2:01:15] >> build the trust with the with the that
[2:01:17] folks will give us that additional
[2:01:19] flexibility and our discretion.
[2:01:21] Uh
[2:01:23] and then we'll we'll see if that
[2:01:26] solves our concern concerns. And I say
[2:01:27] this like we've already decided to make
[2:01:29] this ask of the planning commission. I I
[2:01:31] don't mean to present it that way cuz
[2:01:34] um I want everyone to have a chance to
[2:01:36] sit with it and and Amanda hasn't had a
[2:01:38] chance to weigh in.
[2:01:42] » We have a research a research
[2:01:43] assignment.
[2:01:44] >> Yes.
[2:01:44] >> Thank you.
[2:01:45] >> Uh it looks like there's one more
[2:01:49] findings of fact for docket 202603 DSV.
[2:01:53] Is that just something you need us to
[2:01:55] sign or
[2:01:56] >> Yeah, so this was approved last meeting
[2:01:57] and so a question for legal. The
[2:01:59] findings the the petition overall was
[2:02:02] approved. Um everything's okay. For
[2:02:04] whatever reason, the findings that we
[2:02:06] sign
[2:02:07] disappeared, never made their way back
[2:02:09] to my desk. So, this is now just to
[2:02:13] correct that
[2:02:15] error. Um
[2:02:17] do I mark it as the date it was approved
[2:02:20] or as today the they're signing it?
[2:02:23] >> Um
[2:02:27] I would I either way's fine. I would recommend
[2:02:30] marking it today's date. You the board
[2:02:32] as long as it happens in an in an open
[2:02:34] meeting, they can they can approve
[2:02:36] findings at a subsequent hearing.
[2:02:37] >> Okay. So, that's what I'm going to do.
[2:02:38] I'm going to mark it as today's date,
[2:02:40] but we all understand this was approved
[2:02:42] last month um and we just
[2:02:45] the paperwork disappeared. Okay.
[2:02:48] >> Was it approved unanimously cuz I wasn't
[2:02:50] here so I don't know if I need to sign
[2:02:51] it.
[2:02:51] >> I believe it was.
[2:02:53] But just to be
[2:02:56] cautious
[2:02:59] I only need three to sign it. So
[2:03:02] Josh, Katie, and Jim
[2:03:04] you all sign this.
[2:03:06] >> I remember it enough that I know I was
[2:03:08] supportive of it so I'm happy to
[2:03:10] >> replacement of the two-story garage?
[2:03:11] >> Yes.
[2:03:12] >> Yeah.
[2:03:13] >> I think it was unanimous.
[2:03:14] too but we we
[2:03:17] don't need to put Josh Martin in that
[2:03:18] position. We can the three of us can
[2:03:20] sign it.
[2:03:20] >> Signing for me is more senior for you
[2:03:22] guys.
[2:03:23] Bad move.
[2:03:24] >> I already tried to make him counsel for
[2:03:25] the night's meeting.
[2:03:28] » 40 bucks from us just doesn't cover
[2:03:30] that, does it?
[2:03:32] >> Not that you're easily replaced.
[2:03:33] >> Well
[2:03:35] on that note, I sincerely apologize. I
[2:03:37] had a scheduling area. I was
[2:03:39] a scheduling error.
[2:03:41] Um
[2:03:42] and I was at the Crawfordsville Western
[2:03:44] Boone baseball game at Western Boone
[2:03:46] High School which is why I'm
[2:03:48] uh
[2:03:49] not in my
[2:03:50] uh regular attire but I sincerely
[2:03:52] apologize for for being late.
[2:03:54] >> And sound it out of breath when you
[2:03:56] walk. You look a lot out of breath
[2:03:57] walking in the door.
[2:03:57] >> I didn't get a speeding ticket driving
[2:03:59] so that was fortunate.
[2:04:01] >> Did you have to leave the game early?
[2:04:02] >> Oh yeah. Yeah. I
[2:04:05] >> Do you coach?
[2:04:06] >> No, I was just just watching.
[2:04:09] >> Oh, I I I guess I'm supposed to motion
[2:04:12] to adjourn.
[2:04:13] >> So moved.
[2:04:15] >> Second.
[2:04:15] >> All right. Thank you everyone.
[2:04:16] Goodnight.
[2:04:18] >> Thank you everybody.
[2:04:19] >> Thank you. Thank you.