HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact_PZ-2022-00162 V FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2022-00162 V
Petitioners: The Old Town Design Group, LLC
This matter came for a public hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the
"Board")on September 26, 2022 on the petition filed by John Hefton of Old Town Design Group
on behalf of Thomas & Yvonne King, (collectively "Petitioner") to request Development
Standards Variances from Carmel Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 5.79.J,
Maximum 24" window well encroachments into yard allowed (the "Variance"). The property
subject to the request is located at 401 1St Ave NE, is zoned R3/ Residence, and is subject to the
Old Town Overlay Character Subarea. No remonstrators appeared at the hearing to oppose the
Variances.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
VARIANCE REQUEST PZ-2022-00162 V
1. Petitioner requested a developmental standards variance from UDO Section 5.79.J that
requires a maximum twenty-four-inch window well encroachment. Petitioners request a forty-
two-inch encroachment.
2. The subject Property is approximately located at 401 1st Ave NE, Cannel, Indiana (the
"Property")and is zoned R3. The Property is a part of the CW Weidlers subdivision and is located
in the Old Town Overlay — Character Subarea. The Old Town Overlay District is characterized
small lots and small size houses as well as narrow house fronts compared to length.
3. The proposed project includes a single-family home. The prior house on the Property
was a ranch style home with a one car attached garage.This was demolished in 2020.The proposed
house is a single-family home with a total floor area of 3,990 square feet, a basement with 2,599
square feet, and a garage area of 759 square feet.
4. The surrounding properties include single-family homes that are zoned R3. To the East
are single-family homes that are zoned R2. Further North and West of the property are businesses
along Rangeline Road that are zoned B5.
5. In making its determination,the Board considered the following evidence:
(a) Petitioner's application and supporting documents, including notices, receipts,
attachments, statement of reasons, exhibits, site plans and diagrams;
(b)DOCS Department Report;
(c) Relevant portions of the City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance;
(d)Testimony of Petitioner.
1
6. Petitioner has paid the required fee, filed the necessary documents, and demonstrated
compliance with all public notice requirements in this matter for consideration by the Board.
7. UDO Section 9.15(C) states that developmental standards variances from the terms of
the UDO, and in accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7-4-918.5, may be approved only upon a
determination in writing that:
(a)the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community;
(b)the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
be affected in a substantially adverse manner;
(c)the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property.
8. There was no evidence presented that granting of the variance would be injurious to the
public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.
9. There was evidence presented that granting of this variance would affect the use of the
area adjacent to the Property in a substantially adverse manner. There is a concern that the window
wells would diminish the privacy of the adjacent property as the window wells are eighteen inches
from the property line. The Petitioner stated that a lawnmower could not pass by the window wells
without encroaching on the adjacent property. There was not sufficient evidence to establish that
the value of the adjacent area would be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
10. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the strict application of the terms of
the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The Property is suited for its
current use, has a common shape, and the need for the variance arises out of the design
considerations for the proposed use rather than practical difficulties in the use of the Property.
11. Any Findings of Fact that can be considered Conclusions of Law are deemed
Conclusions of Law, and any Conclusions of Law that can be considered Findings of Fact are
deemed Findings of Fact.
DECISION
Based on the facts stated above,application for developmental standards variance PZ-2022-00162
V is hereby DENIED.
Adoptea d,y of October, 2022.
d 1 '.6,--
CH RP E SON, armel Board of Zoning Appeals
TARY, Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
2