HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-23-93 3z4 g-as -91
It was suggested by Mr. Klineman that the petitioner be given a recess to work with the
Department on a formal request, thereby giving the Board an opportunity to hear the next case
in the interim. DOCKET NO. V-34-93 TEMPORARILY RECESSED.
9g. Docket No. UV-35-93 a Use Variance Application for Timothy L. and Linda L. Mylin and
their property located at 19 Circle Drive, Carmel. Petitioners are requesting a use variance to
allow the existing residence with an outdoor in-ground pool, to be used for private swimming
lessons from 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM 8-9 weeks during the summer. The parcel is zoned R-1.
Filed by E. Davis Coots, attorney for Timothy L. and Linda L. Mylin.
Dave Coots, attorney, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing
Timothy L. and Linda L. Mylin. Both Mr. and Mrs. Mylin are employed as teachers in the
Carmel school system and during the summer, for 8 or 9 weeks, teach swimming in the pool
located on their property at 19 Circle Drive. This past summer, an anonymous complaint was
filed with the Department of Community Development and as a result, Rick Brandau visited the
property and determined that the teaching of swimming in the Mylin pool was not a home
occupation permitted within an R-1 zone classification and accordingly, a use application was
filed which would be personal for Mr. & Mrs. Mylin, for purposes of using the pool as restricted.
An aerial view of the site was presented as well as a map of the area. The Mylins purchased the
property in 1985 and since that time, have increased the value of the property substantially. Mr.
Coots presented a petition signed by a number of the neighbors to permit the continued use
application. Mr. Coots also presented a statement from an F.C. Tucker real estate agent regarding
the impact of the limited use variance application on adjacent properties and properties in the
area.
The Mylins operate their program in one half hour segments, three students per class, and
occasionally employ a third teacher. There are sufficient number of parking spaces in the drive
to accommodate those persons present during each one half hour segment, however in the overlap
period there have been cars parking along the roadside of Circle Drive; however these cars are
at the end of Circle Drive and traffic flow is not impaired.
Mr. Coots referred to a letter from the Department dated July 29 and questioned the necessity
of certain items such as commitment to install sidewalks, and commercial curb cut to the property
considering the limited use variance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this Docket; the following appeared:
Jim Mahoney, 26 Circle Drive, Carmel, stated that he has had no problems with traffic in the area
and felt that the Mylins were doing a service to the community.
Alice Cunningham, 20 Circle Drive, Carmel, stated that the Mylins were the greatest neighbors;
there was never any noise, and Ms. Cunningham felt that the Mylins were doing a great thing
in teaching children to swim.
13
Alice Hauss, 22 Circle Drive, Carmel, stated that she can watch the lessons from her kitchen
window; Mrs. Hauss is also a teacher and home during the summer, and reports no problems.
Don Gardner, 3 Circle Drive, Carmel, stated that traffic for the swimming lessons is no problem,
and the job the Mylins are doing has improved the neighborhood.
Alan Klineman asked about the cooperativeness of the petitioner. Rick Brandau stated that an
anonymous complaint had been filed with the Department. The site was investigated and found
to be a potential violation. A letter was sent to the petitioner outlining their options. The
petitioner did meet the deadline in filing an application with the Department, but no information
was submitted. This case was treated no differently than any other use variance or commercial
use, which is why the sidewalks and commercial curb cuts are mentioned. It is up to the Board
to decide what is valid and not valid. There was no communication from the Mylins which was
viewed as a lack of cooperativeness. Since information has now been submitted to an adequate
degree, it is now up to the Board to make a decision. Unfortunately, the anonymous complainer
did not show up or at least make himself known.
Mr. Coots stated that the Mylins had relied on him to respond to the letter and apologized to the
Board for any interpretation of lack of cooperativeness.
Alan Klineman moved for approval of Docket No. UV-35-93, seconded by Ron Carter,
unanimously approved.
8g. Docket No. V-34-93 (continued after a brief recess)
Doug Floyd reappeared before the Board on behalf of Methodist Medical Plaza Partners North,
L.P.
In regard to three sections of the ordinance, all of which are the subject for separate application
for variance, Sections 27.4.2; 27.3.4; and 27.3.2; the petitioner is requesting that the Board
approve the variances as submitted. In regard to section 17.2 which deals with numbers of
parking spaces, the petitioner is requesting that the Board consider a collaboration of language
by City Attorney, Department Staff, and the petitioner's counsel.
Alan Klineman moved for approval of Docket No. V-34-93 in regard to Variance A (27.4.2);
Variance C (27.3.4); and Variance D (section 27.3.2), as a part of the total motion, seconded by
Bill Ensign.
Alan Klineman asked if the petitioner is considering reconfiguration of the project and if he
intended to work with Mike Hollibaugh of Staff in regard to tree preservation. Mr. Floyd's
response was affirmative.
Mr. Byers pointed out that the petitioner had made tree commitments to the Plan Commission;
Mr. Klar stated that this Docket was referred to Special Study Committee on Tuesday, September
14