HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of FactIN ICE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE }
OF USE APPROVAL )
}
of )
}
ST. VINCENT IIPART CENTER OF INDIANA, LLC )
Applicant. )
September 22, 2914
DECISION
Docket No. 1 470012 UV
Amer a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of
Indiana, the Carr el Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance " ), and the Rules of Procedure of the
Board, the Board hereby denies, by a 3 -2 vote, the application for Variance of Use approval (the
"Application ") filed by the Applicant.
Members voting to deny: James Hawkins; Earlene Plavchak; Madeleine Torres,
Member voting to approve: Dennis Lockwood; Alan Potasnik.
Members recused and not participating: Leo Dierckman
FINDINGS
In accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7 -4 -918.4 and the Ordinance, the Board hereby
determines that the Application should be denied based on the following:
1. The Applicant did not establish that the proposed use will not be injurious to the
public health; safety, morals, and general welfare. The subject property is adjacent to major
construction reconfiguring the 1 -455 and 1 -65 US 31 interchange. The proposed use is subject to
regulation, has not been approved by either INDOT or the FAA, could be a distraction to drivers,
and could create a safety hazard. The subject property requires development standards variances
that, even if approved, will reduce buffering of adjacent properties. The noise emanating from
US.54939142.0 I
the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents and was not tested with actual tale -offs or
landings, or seasonally. Pilots may deviate from approved flight plans and impact adjacent uses,
both in normal circumstances and inclement weather, "No Fly" zones are difficult to enforce.
The proximity of multiple helipads to one another may create a hazard for air traffic which, in
turn, may create ground hazards below flight paths. The frequency of the flights to the proposed
use cannot be determined with precision.
2. The Applicant has not shown that the use and value of the area adjacent to the
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. In
addition to the safety and noise concerns expressed in Paragraph I. above, the Applicant did not
present evidence that the adjacent properties would not suffer a substantially adverse decline in
value,
3. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the need for the proposed use arises from
condition peculiar to the property involved. The Ordinance does not allow helipads on the
subject property without a variance. The Applicant sought to obtain a variance for the subject
property that is not adjacent to its principal use rather than seeking; to amend its site plan for the
principal use. The subject property is not adjacent or ancillary to the Applicant's primary use and
facility. HeIipads are not a "natural condition" of the subject property. There are two helipads
(IrsaylConseco and Indiana University Hospital North) in close. proximity to the subject
property, each of which has successfully been made available to the Applicant for use. As the
Applicant indicated, it has successfully used these helipads while building a world -class heart
hospital and receiving awards. As there is no condition peculiar to the subject property, the grant
of the requested variance would be an unwarranted intrusion into a corporate area proximate to a
residential area.
US.54939142.01
4. The Applicant has not demonstrated that strict application of the terms of the
Ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the subject property. There are
two other lielipads proximate to the Applicant's use, and each of those helipads has successfully
been made available to the Applicant. The Applicant has operated with use of two nearby
helipads in the past, and has, by its own evidence, functioned successfully and developed a
national reputation in its Field. The frequency and duration of the anticipated flights to the
Applicant's use can be handled by one, let alone taro, nearby helipads. Since the Applicant had
the opportunity in 2001 to seek a helipad for the subject property, but elected not to do so at that
time, in the interim period the Applicant's use has operated successfully. The Applicant has also
operated successfully since the 2008 denial of variance request for a helipad at a different
location.
5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed use would not interfere
substantially with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan proposes other
development to the west of the subject property. To protect that development, some reasonable
limitations on Regional Commercial Employment Centers are necessary. Denial of a variance
for a helipad, in an area where there are already two helipads available to the Applicant, is a
reasonable limitation. In securing site plan approval the Applicant expressly stated that its
facility would not be a full emergency room and would be limited to a "chest pain center ". Use
of a helipad would be more consistent with a full emergency room than with the promised chest
pain center, notwithstanding some emergency attributes of a chest pain center.
Filed in the Office of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals this r) L day of November,
2014.
Us.54939142.01
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Connie Tingley
Seeretary
US.S4939142.01