[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.

5/6/2026 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals

Transcript