HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel,Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2022-00243 V
Petitioners: Steven Lammers on behalf of Cary & Carrie Pruett
This matter came for a public hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the
"Board") on January 23, 2022, on the petition filed by Steven Lammers of Mandel, Rauch, &
Lammers, P.C., on behalf of Cary & Carrie Pruett, (collectively "Petitioner") to request a
Development Standards Variance from Cannel's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO")
Section 5.18 Home Occupation Standards—Backyard area requested to be used. The property is
located at 13787 Hickory Ridge Ct. in the Springmill Crossing Subdivision and is zoned
S2/Residence. Three remonstrators appeared at the hearing to oppose the Variance.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
VARIANCE REQUEST PZ-2022-00243 V
1. Petitioner requested a developmental standards variance from UDO Section 5.18.
This section requires, in part,that the Home Occupation shall not change the character of the Lot
or parcel, that the Dwelling shall not bear any indication from the exterior that the lot is being
utilized for a Home Occupation, and that the Home Occupation shall not create outside noise or
vibration. Further, under UDO 5.18A(3) Nuisance, the Home Occupation shall be conducted
wholly within the Dwelling, such that there is no outside noise,vibration,odor, smoke,dust, glare
or electrical disturbance. Mr.Cary Pruett is a soccer coach who conducts individual or small group
soccer lessons on a commercial basis. Petitioner requests to use a portion of his backyard as a
soccer training field/facility for children. Mr. Pruett installed the training facility and started
conducting training sessions without first obtaining a required variance.
2. The subject Property is located at 13787 Hickory Ridge Ct., Carmel, Indiana (the
"Property") and is zoned S2fResidential. The Property is part of the Springmill Crossing
Subdivision.
3. The Property includes a single-family home located on a.33-acre lot. The Property
is located on a cul-de-sac with seven other homes. In his backyard,Mr.Pruett installed an artificial
turf training field/facility that measures twenty-five feet by forty feet.The training area is elevated,
and it is surrounded by a large net on three sides. The training area is located two feet from the
property line on the west side. The Petitioner proposed to use the training field seven days a week,
from 8:00am to 9:00pm with a maximum of ten lessons per day and no more than five students
per lesson.
4. The surrounding properties include single-family homes that are also zoned S2. To
the far east of the Property are single-family homes that are zoned RI. To the far west of the
Property are single-family homes that are zoned S 1.
1
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 and Remonstrators; and
(e) Packet,testimonies, exhibits, and letters of remonstrators.
6. Petitioner has paid the required fee, filed all 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; and
(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 evidence presented that granting of the variance would be injurious to
the public health, safety,morals,and general welfare of the community. Testimony was given that
traffic and idling cars have increased in the area since Mr. Pruett started training session with his
students negatively affecting the surrounding area as the increased traffic presents risks to children,
pedestrians,and other drivers in the neighborhood as the Property is located on a small cul-de-sac.
The noise caused by the training facility has also impacted the community. Numerous letters as
well as testimony of the Remonstrators indicated that the noise interferes with the quiet enjoyment
of surrounding properties, specifically in the backyards. Occasionally, soccer balls escaped from
the training field and landed into neighboring yards, and students jumped fences to retrieve the
ball. This is a safety concern,as other neighbors have animals that may be alarmed by strangers in
their yard,and the students may get hurt climbing fences. Therefore, Petitioner's outdoor business
that generates a substantial amount of noise and increased traffic does not satisfy UDO's
requirements for Home Occupation and is not suitable in an established residential 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. Testimony was given by
neighbors that the height of the artificial turf area has caused flooding in adjacent lots as the turf
has less ability to absorb water than grass and other materials. The noise level created by the
training session has affected the use of adjacent properties. While the Petitioner likened the noise
created by the training sessions to that of children in any residential subdivision,neighbors testified
that the noise was far above what is typically expected from children playing in a backyard.
2
Remonstrators stated that the frequency and type of repetitive noise as well as coaching
instructions is frustrating and does interfere with the use of their property. The noise has been
likened to the constant sound of an off-beat bass drum and has caused some neighbors to stop
using their backyards.The neighborhood does not allow privacy fences,and utility easements limit
what neighbors can plant to screen the training field from their yards.
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. Petitioner stated that the
practical difficulty created by following the terms of the UDO is that he would not be able to run
his business due to business-related costs and/or quality of available fields suitable for soccer
practices.However,this is not a practical difficulty that is related to the use of the property,instead
it is a cost-cutting measure and a preference. The Property is suited for its current residential use,
it has a common shape, and the need for the variance arises out of the business considerations,
rather than practical difficulties in the residential use of the Property. Petitioner can still use his
backyard for personal uses for which a backyard in a subdivision is customarily used. Further,
although it would be more expansive, it would be possible to conduct Mr. Pruett's business at
commercial facilities suitable for soccer practices. Alternatively public parks can be used for the
same purpose. Finally, in addition to not meeting the requirements of UDO 5.18A(2), several
letters and Remonstrators' testimonies indicated that the training sessions generated a substantial
amount of noise hence violating UDO 5.18 A(3) that requires Home Occupations conducted
wholly within the Dwelling, such that there is no outside noise or vibration.
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-2022-00243
V is hereby DENIED.
Adopted this 27th day of February, 2023.
efiAIRPERSON, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
SEC'S' TARY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
3
