HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 10-23-95 CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CqR;, JCLAY
OCTOBER 23, 1995 P��h' °: !c�ClOw/BZA
i.� iU ES
The meeting was called to order by the President in Council Chambers, One Civic Square,
Carmel, Indiana, at approximately 7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were as follows: Diana Cordray; Bill Ensign; Dick Klar; and Alan
Klineman.
A quorum was declared.
Also present were Terry Jones and Mark Monroe of the Department of Community
Development, and Gordon Byers, City Attorney.
Diana Cordray moved for the approval of the minutes of the August meeting, seconded by
Bill Ensign. MOTION APPROVED by unanimous consent.
Alan Klineman moved for the approval of the minutes of the September meeting, seconded by
Bill Ensign. MOTION APPROVED by unanimous consent.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns
lg. Discussion regarding the proposed revisions to the Rules of Procedure will take place
at the end of the meeting.
H. PUBLIC HEARING:
lh. Top Value Fabrics (V-80-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 19.6.1 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
reduce the required number of parking spaces from 66 to 38 spaces. The site is
located at 401 West Carmel Drive. The site is zoned I-1/Industrial.
Filed by Mr. Tom Ringham on behalf of Top Value Fabrics.
Dick Henzel of H&L Leasing Co. owner of the property, appeared before the Board on behalf
of its tenant, Top Value Fabrics, 401 West Carmel Drive. A warehouse addition is being
proposed to the present building and in accordance with the Ordinance, additional parking
spaces would be required. Mr. Henzel stated that Top Value Fabrics employs only 30 persons
and did not feel that the additional parking spaces were warranted both from a practical and
economical standpoint. At present, the facility utilizes 30 parking spaces; office space is not
being increased and personnel is not being expanded. The increased space is for warehouse
storage only and will not affect the parking. The applicant is willing to add the additional
parking spaces at a future time, if and when they are needed. In effect, the applicant is
requesting permission to landbank for future additional parking spaces:
1
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the request for
variance; none appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Alan Klineman moved for approval, (allowing the landbanking of 28 spaces) ONLY as it
applies to H&L Leasing Co., when occupied by Top Value Fabrics, seconded by Bill Ensign.
The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED
2h. Tropics North (V-81-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 27.3.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
construct a parking lot without curbs. The site is located at 4320 West 96th Street.
The Site is zoned I-1/Industrial.
Filed by Mr. Mark Bruton of Tropics North.
Mark Bruton, 11650 East S.R. 334, Zionsville, appeared before the Board representing the
applicant. Permission is requested for a variance to construct a parking lot without curbs.
The petitioner feels that curbed areas are not needed for drainage consideration and this is
supported by a letter from the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, and a letter from the
engineer that designed the drainage for the property. The properties on either side of the site
have parking lots in place which are not curbed, and there has been no problem with
aesthetics.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the request for
variance; none appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Bill Ensign moved for the approval of Docket No. V-81-95, seconded by Diana Cordray. The
vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
3h. GROSSMAN (V-82-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 2.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
create a lot without frontage on a public street. The site is located at 11201 Westfield
Boulevard. The site is zoned R-1/Residential.
Filed by Mr. James Nelson on behalf of Mary E. Grossman.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the
applicant, Mary Elizabeth Grossman, and her son, Thomas Grossman, Jr. Also in attendance
was Jim Shinaver of Mr. Nelson's office.
Mrs. Grossman is requesting a developmental standards variance to permit the creation of an
additional home site on real estate owned by Mrs. Grossman, for the benefit of her son, Tom.
The sole reason for appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals is for relief from Section
2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that all lots have frontage on a public street. The
parcel to be created will not have frontage on a public street, but it does have frontage on
Pine Valley Drive, a roadway which has existed and been in use for many, many years. Also,
2
the request to create an additional parcel and construct a single family home is consistent with
the R-1 Residence District classification, it is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Control Ordinance; the only permit required from the City of Carmel is a
building permit from the Department of Community Development.
Mr. Nelson displayed an aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding area. Mrs.
Grossman's home is accessible by two points of ingress/egress from Westfield Boulevard.
Pine Valley Drive is 20 feet in width and is a 20 foot ingress/egress easement created many
years ago, in fact, as to Mrs. Grossman, in 1943. The parcel to be created lies at the
easternmost edge of the existing parcel, and will measure 100X180, or 18,000 square feet,
which is 8,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size required under the R-1
classification.
It is the petitioner's belief that even though Pine Valley Drive is not a publicly dedicated
street, it does provide a suitable means of ingress/egress for not only the Grossman parcel but
the other homes in the immediate area.
This proposed project has been to the Technical Advisory Committee, and there are no
outstanding issues at this time. Mr. Nelson presented three letters from area neighbors in
support of the proposal.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor; none appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition; the following appeared:
Andrea Smith, 1721 Wood Valley Drive, Carmel, directly north of the Grossman property.
Mrs. Smith stated that she and her husband had received a notice in July from the Department
of Natural Resources notifying them of a public hearing which would be held to consider the
placement of dirt in the floodway by Mrs. Grossman for the purpose of landscaping. The
hearing date has yet to be established and would be classified as an "after the fact"
application made in September; the fill dirt in place on the property is currently in violation
of statutes governing the DNR. The Smiths are asking for delay of approval pending the
results of the DNR hearing. Mrs. Smith stated that when she moved into her home in 1986,
the area was forested and not the dirt shown in the aerial; when the sewers were constructed
in Clay Township, the trees were bulldozed, covered with dirt, concrete, and other debris.
Over the years, the trees began to rot and there were depressions in the land. Mrs. Smith
stated that Mrs. Grossman has used fill dirt to smooth out the ground, and the Smiths are
concerned about a house being built on unstable ground which could become a detriment to
the neighborhood.
Charles R. "Skip" Hageboeck, 1805 Wood Valley Dnve, Carmel, immediately east of the
Grossman property, stated that he owned Pine Valley Drive for the entire length of the
property abutting the south end of Mrs Grossman's property, expressed several concerns: 1)
It is unclear whether or not Mrs. Grossman does, indeed, have an easement to Pine Valley
3
•
which is on the Hageboeck's property 2) Mr Hageboeck questioned the connection of
sewers from the proposed parcel. 3) Mr. Hageboeck also expressed concern regarding the
DNR hearing on the issue of the fill dirt and any activity in the floodplain which would put
his home at risk; the Hageboeck's are also asking for delayed consideration of Mrs.
Grossman's request until after the DNR hearing. 4) Under the process for zoning variance,
Mr. Hageboeck did not think that Mrs. Grossman could demonstrate any unnecessary hardship
associated with not being able to subdivide the property for the purpose of building--perhaps
inconvenience, but not hardship..
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Nelson reiterated that a variance was only being sought from Section 2.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance which requires that lots have frontage on a public street. The petitioner is seeking
the same benefit the other property owners of Pine Valley share, i.e. the nght to use Pine
Valley Drive as a means of ingress/egress to Westfield Boulevard. Mr. Nelson distributed a
copy of a recently prepared survey of the Grossman parcel which shows, adjacent to the south
property line, a 20 foot easement known as Pine Valley Drive, also shown was an excerpt
from Mrs. Grossman's abstract of title which identifies that in a prior deed in 1946, reference
was made to an easement for highway purposes only over a strip of ground 20 feet in width
immediately south and adjacent to the parcel. It is important to note that Mrs. Grossman has
lived in this property since 1954, and since that time, has utilized Pine Valley Drive at least
as a partial means of ingress and egress to her home, during which time no one has attempted
to stop Mrs. Grossman from using Pine Valley Drive.
Mr. Nelson stated again that the proposal had been reviewed by Technical Advisory
Committee. John South of the Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District
suggested that there be compaction tests prior to the commencement of construction and the
petitioner agreed. There have been discussions with Clay Regional Waste District, and it is
the belief that sewer availability exists and is eligible for use. It is important to note that the
construction of a single family residence on the real estate involved does not require DNR
approval; however, DNR must approve any construction activity in a floodway. Carmel
Creek meanders in a southeasterly direction and some fill dirt placed on the site did encroach
into the floodway of Carmel Creek. During the construction activity, Tom Grossman was not
aware that a DNR permit was required. The petitioner has applied to DNR for an "after-the-
fact" permit to allow a part of the area in the northeast corner to remain as it is; if the permit
is denied, it will be removed. However, the DNR issue has nothing to do with a single
family residence and the purpose of appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The
petitioner has also applied to FEMA for a revision of a flood map for the portion of Carmel
Creek that is nearest the Grossman property.
Dick Klar asked about the ownership of the easement; Jim Nelson responded that he did not
know who owned fee simple title to the easement; Mr Hageboeck could, in fact, be correct,
although ownership would be subject to the easement which is the sole means of
ingress/egress to Westfield Boulevard.
4
Gordon Byers, City Attorney, commented that if parties had concerns over the easement, it
could be litigated. There is either an easement by prescription or created by the contract or
there may even be no need for a variance on the property. The floodway issue could be a
condition precedent of approval
Alan Klineman moved for approval of Docket No. V-82-95, seconded by Bill Ensign. The
vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
4h. Beverly Enterprises (V-83-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 27.5 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
reduce the required number of parking spaces from 300 to 138 spaces. The site is
located at 12999 North Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B-2/Business and R-
5/Residential.
Filed by Mr. Zeff Weiss on behalf of Beverly Enterprises.
Gretchen Snelling, 3400 One American Square, Indianapolis, and associate Zeff Weiss
appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance was Bill Bramley,
General Manager of Summer Trace Retirement Community. Beverly Enterprises has owned
and operated Summer Trace Retirement Community since 1986; Summer Trace was recently
sold to Manor Health Care Corporation. A developmental standards variance is being sought
regarding the parking space requirements at Summer Trace.
In 1983, at the time the subject property was rezoned to permit the development of Summer
Trace, it was recognized that the ordinance was too conservative for the proposed use and the
development plan was approved with 138 parking spaces on the condition that Beverly
Enterprises would seek a permanent variance of the parking requirement after it had been in
operation six months. Beverly Enterprises did not seek a developmental standards variance at
the appropriate time; however, it is now deemed that the number of parking spaces approved
are adequate for the operation of Summer Trace, and there have been no known problems of
overflow parking into the community The petitioner is formally requesting a developmental
standards variance allowing Summer Trace to continue its operation with 138 parking spaces.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition of the proposed variance;
none appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Bill Ensign recommended that any approval be conditional to the present owner and not apply
to any subsequent owners.
Ms. Snelling stated that the facility had recently been sold to Manor Health Care.
Mark Monroe of the Department stated that in 1983, Summer Trace was presented as a
Developmental Plan and Rezone; in the B-2 classification, a nursing home is a permitted use,
not a special use.
5
Diana Cordray asked why Beverly Enterprises had not sought a permanent variance of the
parking requirement as agreed in 1983; Mark Monroe responded that it was not reflected in
the minutes--the petitioner did not return and the Department did not follow up.
Diana Cordray expressed concern because of current activities being advertised and conducted
at Summer Trace, and the amount of people entenng and exiting the facility. Ms. Cordray
felt that the petitioner had been negligent over the past ten/twelve years by not returning to
the Board and requesting a permanent variance.
Zeff Weiss, co-counsel with Gretchen Snelling agreed that certainly there was negligence, but
had they appeared within the time frame, they would have stated that at the end of six months
of operation, Beverly Enterprises had operated consistent with the grant of variance given at
the time of initial re-zoning, the six month time frame was only to establish whether or not
the parking spaces at the facility were adequate. For the past ten/twelve years, Summer Trace
has operated without an overflow into the adjacent area. The facility contains a nursing
facility, an independent living facility, and a level of care in between. Mr. Weiss stated that
there had been no change in the focus of the facility or its operation--there is no public
restaurant facility available, it is only for the people who live there and their guests. The 138
parking spaces are indeed adequate for the residents and their guests. Mr. Weiss was
agreeable to the variance being tied to the existing use, inasmuch as the intensity of the use of
the facility was not expected without changing parking spaces; Mr. Weiss offered to draft
covenants regarding the interior structure which would dictate the type of use.
Alan Klineman asked if perhaps a month would be sufficient to work out the language which
would satisfy the Board's and Department's concerns.
Diana Cordray moved to table Docket No. V-83-95 until the next meeting, seconded by Alan
Klineman, all in favor, MOTION APPROVED.
NOTE: Items 5h. and 6h. are to be heard together but voted on separately.
5h. Wilson Office Plaza (V-84-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 19.6 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
reduce the required greenbelt area from 30 feet to 14 feet. The site is located at 937
Keystone Way. The site is zoned B-8/Business.
Filed by Steve Wilson.
Steve Wilson, 12870 Norfolk Circle, Carmel, appeared before the Board requesting a variance
from the required greenbelt area at the Wilson Office Plaza, located at 937 Keystone Way.
The site was originally constructed as retail space and converted to office space approximately
ten years ago, with the exception of the Illusions Restaurant. The entrance to the business
plaza is off Carmel Drive, to the north of McDonald's. The north property line backs up to
Mohawk Apartments 25 foot greenbelt, beyond which is a parking area, dumpster, and drive.
The petitioner anticipates constructing a two-story building, 3,217 square, exterior and style to
6
be the same as is existing.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variance;
none appeared and the public heanng was closed.
Alan Klineman asked about the volume of traffic to be generated by the new building. Mr.
Wilson stated that he will be leasing his present office space in the facility to a third party
and was planning to move his office to the first floor of the new building; as of now, the
second floor office space is not leased. Traffic being added to Carmel Drive would be
minimal.
The request for variance to exempt review by the Plan Commission was discussed, and Mr.
Klineman was not in favor of doing so for fear of establishing a precedent.
Mr. Wilson elected to WITHDRAW Wilson Office Plaza, Docket No. V-84-95.
In response to questions from Diana Cordray, Mark Monroe stated that the Department had
some definite concerns regarding the greenbelt requirement. The Department has worked with
the petitioner on the landscape plan to accomplish the maximum in the 14 feet that would be
utilized, if approved. Comments from the Department in regard to landscaping were: Along
the north property line, the Department felt that the petitioner should install six additional
shrubs and two small trees; along the west property line, the Department is requesting two
additional large trees. Both comments are in compliance with the Department's Buffer Yard
Requirements.
Mr. Wilson stated that there is an existing tree line in place which is substantial; the buffer
•
area would also back up to Mohawk Hills' drive and parking lot; to the west is an empty
field.
Alan Klineman moved for the approval of Docket No. V-84-95, subject to the Department's
guidelines being met, seconded by Bill Ensign. The vote was four in favor, none opposed,
MOTION APPROVED.
NOTE: Items 7h. through and including 12h. were TABLED by the petitioner.
Items 13h. and 14h. were heard together but voted on separately.
13h. Carmel High School (SU-92-95)
Petitioner seeks special use approval to construct an addition to the existing building
and to do other site improvements. The site is located at 520 East Main Street. The
site is zoned R-2/Residential.
Filed by Crape and O'Donnell.
7
14h. Carmel High School (V-93-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 8.4 1 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
allow a building to exceed the allowable height of 25 feet. The site is located at 520
East Main Street. The site is zoned R-2/Residential.
Filed by Cripe and O'Donnell.
Brian Wilson of Cripe and O'Donnell, Engineers, 7172 Graham Road, Indianapolis, appeared
before the Board representing the applicant. Also appearing were: Ned Melchi,
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds for Carmel/Clay Schools; Steve Fehribach of A&F
Traffic Engineers; and Jim Wicks, Project Architect.
The High School is a special use in a residential district; there is a building height restriction
of 25 feet within the residential district. The applicant has appeared before the Technical
Advisory Committee and has also conducted a neighborhood meeting at the high school to
outline the request for the variance and special use.
Mr. Wilson reviewed drawings of the proposed project which would renovate the existing
school facility with some building additions The courtyard area would be enclosed and the
space utilized. An auxiliary area to the west of the school will be added, (gymnasium and/or
community use building). A natatorium will be added to the opposite side of the existing
gymnasium which is used in the school's physical education program and also use of the
public. The current tennis court area will be parking area, and the courts will be re-located to
the far north end of the site just north of Cool Creek and south of Smokey Row Road. The
area is currently flood plain, and an application is pending with the Department of Natural
Resources for the approval of construction within a flood plain. An administrative approval
will also be needed from the Department of Community Development.
The petitioner is making improvements to the intersection of Fourth and Main Streets,
currently before the City Council for approval; however, the petitioner will include the plans
for roadway improvements in the plans for the High School, and will be bid as a part of the
High School Project. Building elevations were also shown. Most areas are below existing
building heights.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project; none appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project, the
following appeared:
Charles Sacowitz, 140 Beechmont Drive, immediately east of the school. Mr. Sacowitz stated
that he had attended the neighborhood meeting and requested that the school consider putting
up a fence along the east property line where there will be additional parking. The proposed
parking lot lies directly behind Mr. Sacowitz' home. Vernon Booth, neighbor of Mr.
Sacowitz, joined in the request for the fence. Mr Sacowitz stated his reasons for the request
for the fence. 1) security; 2) privacy; and 3) discourage foot traffic which currently exists
between the two properties and the school. Landscaping is a nice buffer, but it will not
8
•
discourage foot traffic and Mr. Sacowitz was firm in his request for a fence.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Wilson commented that he had spoken with Mr. Sacowitz at the neighborhood meeting
regarding the fence, and another neighbor who requested that there not be a fence. Mr.
Wilson was ultimately told that in the school's opinion, a fence was not necessary; if the
fence were installed in one location, it would be necessary to install a fence around the entire
school perimeter, and there was a cost factor involved. Mr. Wilson stated that the buffer
issue had been addressed and that as far as the landscaping plans were concerned, the
requirements had been applied to the proposed project, and comments from the Department
had been met.
Alan Klineman felt that Mr. Sacowitz certainly had a legitimate complaint regarding foot
traffic through his yard into what will be a parking lot. Mr. Klineman asked for the reasoning
regarding the refusal for a fence.
Ned Melchi, Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds for Carmel/Clay Schools, stated the
school's position, that this particular site had never been fenced and the school wanted to
leave the area open; fencing would add to the cost and had never been an issue; the situation
was felt to have been addressed through landscaping.
Diana Cordray asked if there had been reported instances of vandalism and malicious mischief
over the past three years in the area in question; Mr. Melchi responded with uncertainty.
Mr. Klineman commented that he would not want any fencing to destroy the quality of the
landscaping intended for this particular area; the fence should blend in with the greenery.
Alan Klineman moved for approval of Docket No. SU-92-95, SUBJECT TO a six foot high,
vinyl covered, chain link fence being erected on the east property line which will blend in
with the landscaping, the length of which is to be sufficient to provide some security for the
residents to the east of the high school, namely from the "end of the wall to where the
landscaping ends." The motion was seconded by Diana Cordray. The vote was four in favor,
none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
Diana Cordray moved for approval of Docket No. V-93-95, variance of Section 8.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance, to allow the height of the building to exceed 25 feet, seconded by Alan
Klineman. The vote was three in favor, Bill Ensign opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
15h. Dodd Kennel (SU-94-95)
Petitioner seeks special use approval to operate a commercial dog kennel in a
residential district. The site is located at 6172 East 122nd Street. The site is zoned S-
1/Residential.
Filed by Thomas Dodd.
9
Thomas and Lori Dodd, 6172 East 122nd Street, Carmel, appeared before the Board
requesting a special use approval to operate a commercial kennel. Mr. Dodd wished to
emphasize that he does not consider himself to be operating a "commercial kennel" and the
kennel is definitely not a profit making organization. Mr. Dodd stated that he and his wife
breed Labrador Retrievers; Lori Dodd is a professional trainer and Mr. Dodd is an amateur
trainer and competitor on the Hunt Test and Field Trial Circuit. Mr. Dodd also stated that
they obedience train every Labrador they own.
Mr. Dodd stated that actual kennel space on their property takes up less than 650 square feet
out of a total of almost 50,000 square feet. The kennel space consists of a 38X14 foot
concrete slab with modular fencing to make up six kennel runs The Dodds are planning to
install a permanent privacy fence, 64X64 feet, to completely surround the kennel area and to
provide an exercise yard for the dogs. In regard to waste removal, solids are scooped twice
daily from the concrete and removed from the premises weekly by a residential waste service;
the kennels are washed and sprayed daily, with the urine being sprayed into a gravel leech -
bed in order to maintain sanitary conditions and the health and safety of the animals. The
kennels are also sprayed with a disinfectant twice weekly.
In regard to traffic and parking facilities, Mr. Dodd stated that their residence has access from
a private lane off 122nd Street, and any additional traffic created when puppies are available
does not affect City street traffic, nor does it affect traffic on the lane. Mr. Dodd wished to
make it clear that the facility does not board animals; they do however, breed and train. Mr.
Dodd stated that from June to September of last year, there were four litters of puppies on the
ground at one time, 36 pups, and during that time, approximately 106 cars were
accommodated, less than one car per day. Mr. Dodd felt that there was adequate parking; the
drive is 180 feet long by 1.5 feet wide, and a large circular drive which can accommodate
several cars, however, Mr. Dodd stated that their business is by appointment only and there
are never more than three people (cars) looking at puppies at one time.
Lori Dodd then spoke about the kennel and reiterated that they do NOT board dogs; the
maximum is a six run kennel. Mrs. Dodd distributed photos of the dogs and stated that she
has placed several narcotics dogs, donated puppies to various Police Departments and
Muscular Dystrophy, contributes to the Humane Society, and volunteers her training time for
handicap persons with dogs. Mrs. Dodd also stated that she is private, by appointment only,
and not a large, commercial venture. However, Mrs. Dodd does babysit a dog owned by
Tony and Shirley Bentenhausen during the month of May. Mrs. Dodd read a letter of support
from one of her clients, Steven Fields.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared:
Dr. Tom Mullens, resident of Westfield and veterinarian with the Northside Animal Hospital,
appeared before the Board and stated that he has known the Dodds for the past two years and
can attest to the cleanliness of the facility and the humane treatment of the dogs. Dr. Mullens
stated that the Dodds are very professional and their operation is reasonable
10
Amy Johnson, 6175 East 122nd Street, directly north of the Dodds, stated that they enjoy
having the kennel behind them and her son enjoys playing with the dogs. The kennel is clean
and the dogs are confined to the facility Mrs. Johnson expressed favor with the Dodds'
facility
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
appeared:
Sarah Everett, attorney at law with UAW legal services, 5435 North Emerson Way,
Indianapolis 46226, appeared on behalf of her client, Calvin and Genita Castle, 6167 East
122nd Street, Carmel. Ms. Everett highlighted an advertisement place in the Northwood Hills
1995 Homeowners Directory by the Dodds regarding group and individual classes; a puppy
kindergarten; obedience ring; and field work. Ms. Everett distributed a series of photographs,
the first of which was a private lane providing ingress/egress to four properties. Ms. Everett
stated that the lane is not maintained by the County or City, but is maintained by the four
families to gain access. There reportedly have been cars parked in the private lane on
occasion and accessibility by emergency vehicles would be prohibited. One photograph of
the Dodd property shows at least six dogs at one time and they appear to be barking. Ms
Everett stated that the property is indeed in a residential area and is heavily wooded; however
the trees do not buffer the sound of the barking dogs. Ms. Everett aired a video tape for the
Board which was done on a walk through the Castle's property. The dogs could be heard
barking and Ms. Everett did not feel that she was doing anything to incite the dogs; the same
holds true for the Castles, they do not feel they do anything to incite the dogs, they are
merely trying to enjoy their back yard and property. Ms. Everett also walked through the
Hibarger's property and the dogs still barked. Ms. Everett also testified to a definite and
unpleasant odor from the kennel.
Sarah Everett read from the plat covenants and restrictions of Northwood Hills, which states,
in part, that "no farm animals except for riding horses or ponies shall be permitted on the lot
or lots in this Subdivision, and no pets or domestic animals for commercial purposes kept
thereon." Ms. Everett also stated that she had tried to determine whether or not the Dodds
were in a floodzone; Ms. Everett's understanding of the Zoning Ordinance is that the Board
could not exercise Special Use Approval in any of the flood plain districts until the Board has
received written approval from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission, although approval
from the Board of Zoning could be conditioned upon approval from the Indiana Natural
Resources Commission.
Ms. Everett read a real estate appraisal which stated that the Castles property would decline
$13,100.00 if the commercial kennel is allowed to operate. Ms. Everett referred to the
Board's five items of criteria for approval for special use applications. In short, Ms. Everett
did not feel that the land is suitable for the use of an outdoor kennel, and that guns being
fired in the training of dogs, even though the guns are empty, is unacceptable in a residential
neighborhood.
11
Ms. Everett stated that clearly, the Dodds benefit the community in some sense; however, the
benefit if not enough to offset the anticipated effect on the surrounding properties (decrease in
property values). Ms. Everett felt that the covenants and restrictions spoke for what the
neighborhood wanted to achieve--purely residential, no commercial activity. A privacy fence
will not solve the barking dogs or the odor.
Calvin Castle, 6167 East 122nd Street, spoke in opposition to the kennel and some statements
made by Mr. Dodd on his special use application. Mr. Castle pointed out that what Mr.
Dodd referred to as a 75 acre horse farm to the east of the Dodd's property is actually the
Indianapolis Water Company. Also, Mr. Dodd referred to a German Shepherd breeder in the
area, however, Mr Castle knows nothing of the supposed location. Mr. Castle stated that if
any person or wildlife moves or stirs, the dogs bark. The Sheriff was called to quiet the
dogs, the time was approximately four in the morning. Also, the Castles cited the devaluation
of their property with a commercial kennel in the neighborhood.
Scott Featherston, 5925 East 122nd Street, stated that he hears dogs barking in the area;
however, after questions from Alan Klineman, Mr. Featherston could not say for sure whether
or not the barking dogs came from the Dodds' property.
James Ware, 6135 East 122nd Street, diagonally across from the Dodds, stated that he is
distressed by the noise factor, and disturbed continually by barking dogs. The dogs interrupt
sleep, and the Wares cannot walk in their yard for disturbing the dogs and causing them to
bark. Mr. Ware was also concerned regarding the possible decrease in the value of his home
due to a commercial kennel in the immediate neighborhood.
Marty Roan, 6301 East 122nd Street, two houses away from the Dodds, stated that she could
not sleep with her windows open not only due to the Dodds' dogs barking, but other dogs in
the neighborhood as well. Ms. Roan did not want one more barking dog at night!
The public hearing was then closed.
Lori Dodd stated that there are certainly other dogs in the neighborhood that bark; the Dodd
home is not in Northwood Hills and therefore not governed by their covenants and
restrictions; the ad was placed in the Northwood Hills directory to offer free obedience, in-
home training to anyone in the neighborhood because of concern regarding the amount of
strays in the area. Mrs. Dodd stated that she does not hold classes in her home, but does, as
the ad states, make house calls. In regard to the video, Mrs. Dodd stated that the dogs would
bark at any motion; a fence could have resolved the situation, but Mrs. Dodd held off on the
fence because of the zoning. Mrs. Dodd stated that they were furnished with incorrect zoning
information at the time they bought the house.
Thomas Dodd stated that to the best of his knowledge, his clients do not block the lane;
however, a 40 foot motor home has recently been parked in the lane Mr. Dodd stated that
the German Shepherd breeder lives three doors south of him; the Dodds' dogs are inside at
12
9:00 in the evening, and out at 9.00 in the morning. Mr Dodd questioned the appraisal and
devaluation of the homes.
Alan Klineman asked Sara Everett if the home, indeed, was in the Northwood Hills
Subdivision; Ms. Everett responded with uncertainty, however, it was thought that those
homeowners listed in the Directory of Northwood Hills were in the Subdivision and therefore
governed by their covenants and restrictions.
Mr. Klineman highly recommended that Ms. Everett do more thorough research on the facts
before making representations to the Board. The Hamilton County Courthouse would have
been an excellent source for the facts.
Mrs. Dodd stated that it was only a matter of courtesy that they were allowed to be listed in
the Directory, however, they are not a part of the platted subdivision of Northwood Hills.
Diana Cordray commented that as a Board member, there is one issue to be concerned with,
and that is whether or not the Dodds keep more than four dogs on their property, since that is
the determining factor for a commercial kennel. All other factors are certainly relevant, but
there is one main issue that should be focused on.
Alan Klineman concurred with Diana Cordray. The Dodds are operating a commercial kennel
in a residential neighborhood , and that is a problem.
Gordon Byers read the definition of a kennel from the Ordinance; if the number of dogs
exceeds three, it becomes a Special Use and is governed by the 25 items of cnteria for
review, such as whether or not the special use negatively impacts surrounding property,
adequate facilities, adequate ingress/egress, suitable site for characteristics of special use, etc.
Diana Cordray moved for approval of Docket No. SU-94-95, seconded by Bill Ensign.
Bill Ensign stated that he was not thoroughly convinced that the barking dogs belonged to the
Dodds, since they stated their dogs are in at night, and there are apparently other dogs in the
neighborhood. Mr Ensign discounted the negative impact of the appraisal/market survey as
being directly related to barking dogs; Mr. Ensign thought it was more the fact that the homes
are in a floodplain.
The vote on the motion for approval of Docket No. SU-94-95 was one in favor, Diana
Cordray, Dick Klar, and Alan Klineman opposed. MOTION DENIED.
NOTE: Items 16h. and 17h. were heard together but voted on separately.
16h. Vine and Branch (UV-95-95)
Petitioner seeks a use variance to operate an antique shop in an existing house and to
add other accessory buildings to operate a landscaping business. The site is located on
13
(.(0
east 146th Street, just west of Gray Road. The site is zoned R-1/Residential.
Filed by Judson Scott.
17h. Vine and Branch (V-96-95)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Sections 27.3.1 and 27.3.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning
Ordinance to construct a parking lot without paving and curbing. The site is located
on east 146th Street, just west of Gray Road. The site is zoned R-1/Residential.
Filed by Judson Scott.
Judson Scott, 5203 Woodfield Drive, Carmel, appeared as owner of the Vine and Branch.
Mr. Scott is seeking a use variance to operate an antique shop in an existing home located at
4721 East 146th Street, just west of Gray Road, and also seeking a variance to construct a
parking lot without paving and curbing. The property was originally built in 1874 by
Hinchman Haines. It is Mr Scott's intention to construct a storage facility for the Vine and
Branch, whose business is landscape maintenance, primarily operating in Hamilton and
Marion Counties. Mr. Scott's business employs approximately ten persons.
It is also Mr. Scott's intention to restore the home to its original character. Mr. Scott would
like to use the restored home as an office, and operate an antique shop. Mr. Scott distributed
a picture of the home as originally built; in keeping with the original flavor of the property,
Mr. Scott is requesting the variance to construct the parking lot without paving and curbing.
The storage facility will be of the 1800's flavor; a metal building with a porch, rocking chairs,
etc. Mr. Scott was specific in the nature of an antique shop and not a flea market. The
grounds would be landscaped gardens. The property is within a "commercial use node." The
property has a history of commercial use; initially the home was used as a post office, trading
post, and general store. In the 1860's, antiques were sold from this particular home by a
previous owner, the Townsends.
Mr. Scott reported that the concerns of the Technical Advisory Committee had been
addressed. Mr. Scott has agreed with the County Highway Department to improve the
driveway access and the visibility.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project; no one
appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project,
the following appeared:
Gene Alberson, 4411 East 146th Street, (east of Salisbury Brothers) appeared before the
Board as a concerned neighbor opposed to the project. Mr. Alberson felt that the proposed
business belongs in a commercial park rather than an area zoned residential. Mr. Alberson
felt that ten employees, doing business in Marion and Hamilton Counties, would be too much
traffic and equipment being moved in and out of the property and added to 146th Street. Mr.
Alberson also stated that the property is limited in depth and as 146th Street is widened, the
50 feet right-of-way would almost eliminate any frontage for the property. Mr. Alberson
14
f
stated that allowing the property to be used for commercial purposes was incompatible with
homes in the area and would significantly lower the quality of life and value of residential
properties in the immediate area. It was Mr. Alberson's contention that whatever was done
today would only magnify the traffic problem five years from now, and he saw no logical
reason for granting the variance.
Mary Muegge, P.O Box 19502, Indianapolis, 46219, was concerned about drainage and also
inquired about the intentions of Vine and Branch expanding, since inquiries had been made as
to ground availability.
The public hearing was then closed.
Judson Scott responded that the water problems in the area relate to the Mitchner drain or
Wheeler Ditch. Mr. Scott commented that Melvin Featherstone farms land in the area for
property owner, Mrs. Murphy, and Mr. Featherstone believes there is no runoff problem from
the site at 4721 East 146th Street. Mr. Scott also stated that some problems that Mrs.
Muegge has may be directly related to the Salsbery Landscaping business and not tied to his
property.
Judson Scott has agreed with Mike Hollibaugh of the Department to change any aspect of the
landscaping plan that the Department deemed necessary or appropriate, subject also to the
approval of the Muegges, since they have horses in the pasture to the south of the proposed
project. Mr. Scott also stated a willingness to increase landscaping between his property and
the Albersons, even though there is a field between the two properties.
Alan Klineman asked about the type and amount of equipment which would be stored on the
property; Mr. Scott responded that most of his equipment was small and would be store
within the building to be constructed. Mr Scott stated that he has one "chipper" truck and
small trucks, but did not anticipate an increase in the number of employees. At present, most
equipment is stored in a barn in Sharpsville, but each crew takes its equipment home.
Mr. Klineman commented that an antique business would not generate a lot of traffic and
congestion in the area; however, Mr. Klineman did express concern regarding a landscape
maintenance business from the standpoint of equipment, (heavier and industrial) and that the
use is heavier than anticipated from a land use map of the area.
Diana Cordray also expressed concern with large equipment which a maintenance service
would require.
Gordon Byers commented that the Board could add conditions to a use variance, such as
limiting outside storage. A variance is also being sought for paving.
Alan Klineman felt that limiting outside storage was difficult for the Department to monitor.
15
•
Diana Cordray expressed favor with tabling; however the petitioner was not in agreement.
Bill Ensign moved for the approval of Docket No UV-95-95, use variance for Vine and
Branch, seconded by Alan Klineman.
Alan Klineman again expressed concern with possible heavy equipment on the property.
Judson Scott stated that all of his equipment can be contained in a pickup truck and the large
"chipper" truck with a "chipper" behind it. Mr. Scott stated that he does not intend to have
nursery stock such as the Salsberys ane definitely does not intend to expand.
Mark Monroe stated that the Department did have some concerns regarding the landscaping
plan; however, Mr. Scott has expressed a willlingness to work with the Department. The
main concern was buffering between the proposed building on the south and west ends.
The vote was three in favor, Alan Klineman opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
Diana Cordray moved for the approval of Docket No. V-96-95, variance for the construction
of a parking lot without paving and curbing, seconded by Bill Ensign. The vote was three in
favor, Alan Klineman opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
There was discussion regarding the Rules of Procedure; some changes and corrections were
suggested by Gordon Byers and Bill Ensign, duly noted by the Department.
Bill Ensign then moved for the approval of the Rules of Procedures, incorporating changes
and corrections noted, seconded by Diana Cordray. The vote was four in favor, none
opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
For informational purposes, Mark Monroe distributed the Department's requirements in regard
to buffer yards.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
10:45 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary Richard J. Klar, President
16