Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 01-23-23 roF c`�e T,NER y�, Cityof C /NDIANp. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes Monday,January 23,2023 Location: Cannel City Hall Council Chambers,2nd Flr., 1 Civic Sq.,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: Leo Dierckman(President),Brad Grabow,Jim Hawkins(Vice),Alan Potasnik,Leah York DOCS Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh(Director);Angie Conn(Planning Administrator)Joe Shestak(Recording Secretary) Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin,Allison Lynch-Mcgrath Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum,Swearing-in of Members,and Officer Elections 1. Election of President:A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Potasnik to elect Dierckman as President. Approved 5-0. 3. Election of Vice President:A Motion made by Grabow and seconded by Dierckman to elect as Hawkins as Vice President.Approved 5-0. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings A Motion made by Grabow and seconded by Hawkins to approve the Nov.28,2022,meeting minutes. Approved 5-0. Communications,Bills,and Expenditures:Angie Conn: • PZ-2022-00192 UV;00193 V;00201 V;00203 V: Insurance Office Variances has been tabled to Feb.27 IPublic Hearings Leo: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a BZA public hearing (SE)44 Horseshoe Ln.Group Home. The applicant seeks the following special exception approval for an 8-person group home for the elderly: 1. Docket No.PZ-2022-00208 SE UDO Section 2.07 Residential Special Exception. The site is located at 44 Horseshoe Ln.(Woodland Springs Subdivision, Lot 360). It is zoned RI/Residence.Filed by Jennifer Piccione of J&B RAL 1 Indiana,LLC. Petitioner: Jennifer Piccione: • Requesting to operate as housing with services established as defined under Indiana Law,and not a medical facility or skilled nursing home requiring licensing • Residents will have more one or more physical or mental disabilities which will require support of services • These residents are protected by housing discrimination by the State and Federal Fair Housing Law • We are requesting Reasonable Accommodation under Section 5.72 E.of the UDO. We will meet the 7 criteria listed: There are no other Group Homes within a block of this site.There will be up to 8 residents that will function as one single housing unit.Daily staff will consist of 2 caregivers during the day,and 1 at night.None of the caregivers will reside at this home. The residents will not have their own vehicles,and the caregivers will park their vehicles in the driveway or garage,and their personal cars will not be marked.The exterior of the home will remain to look as it does now and will not have any indication that the home will be inhabited by Group Home residents. There will be no undue financial or administrative burdens that would be imposed on the City,and our proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Our proposal will give Cannel residents an option to live within a neighborhood setting • Our home will continue to blend into this neighborhood remaining as the same size and scale.No additional lighting is being requested.No loud parties or barking dogs will not be done at this site. • By 2029, it is estimated that there will be a shortage of nearly 3 million assisted-living beds • This housing type will give Carmel residents an option to age and reside in a residential home 1 BZA Meeting Minutes 1-23-23 • Studies show that outcomes for residents improved in a housing setting like ours • A CDC study showed that residents in larger caregiver facilities are 2x more likely to fall then in homes like ours • There's no indication that having a Group Home in a neighborhood reducing surrounding property values • I personally researched all the surrounding homes by the Story Cottage Group Home in Cannel,and all have increased in value • Group Homes are treated as residential under Federal and State laws • Laundry is done in-house,groceries are purchased by caregivers,not delivered by commercial trucks • There's no required extensive driving through the neighborhood, since this home is located just three houses from the neighborhood entrance • This home,prior to us purchasing it,was occupied by 8 residents,some related,and some not related. Either adult or school-aged children who left the house daily for work, school, social engagements,errands,etc. The previous 8 residents lived at this home without incident or complaint. • This use does not violate any of the CRCs of the Woodland Springs subdivision • We have received requests from future residents who are waiting for this home to open • We received approximately 46 opposition letters that make inaccurate and false claims how this home will operate and the type of residents who will live here • There are over 400 homes in Woodland Springs,which means approximately 350 households did not object • We are providing a much needed and desired housing option,and we are truly invested in this community Public Comments in Support: Jenna Centofante,Beech Drive: I live next door to the Story Cottage Group Home. I love living next to this property. My property increased just from residing next door. Landscaping is consistently taken care of.The arrival of emergency vehicles is not an issue. Visitors visiting the residents respect the neighborhood. Mindy Garcia, Westfield: I'm trying to find a place for my sister to live. Loneliness is an issue. My sister fell while living by herself. She is not ready for the traditional nursing home and wants to be part of a family in the setting of a home Marcy Brittingham,Fishers: I am my mother's primary caregiver. It was very difficult. She then moved to a 55 and older community. I had to take away her car. I toured every facility within my budget. My mother needs to live with a small group. She is not ready for assisted living in a large institution facility. Public Comments in Opposition: Vern Roach,Eden Estates Drive: Keystone Pkwy was designated as a boundary between single-family housing and business in the late 70's. This is a residential business.There's no positive impact for this Group Home. I don't care where the house is located.This request is a slippery slope,and it should be denied. David Conley, Horseshoe Lane: I live next door. We have had family members that need care,but that's hardly the issue. There were not 8 people living in that house. There were 2 divorced males living here,who had 3 children between them. Occasionally the children would be there for the weekend, but they didn't live there. Only 1 adult male lived here full time. Why would we have a commercial enterprise that makes money in the middle of the residential neighborhood? Jack Rogers,Horseshoe Lane: UDO Section 5.72 E states reasonable accommodation.#7 states if a fundamental alteration in the Comp Plan would be required. Of course, it is.Anything east of Keystone is a single-family dwelling. This is not a single-family dwelling. This would request would destroy the Comp Plan. In the 70's they established the Keystone Pkwy as a boundary between commercial and residential. This is a business.The issue is not old people,but the location. Where should this be placed?There's a lot of places that the zoning allows it. Why should this go in the middle of a residential area?I would hate to have only 2 bathrooms for 8 people. Put this in an allowable zoning district. Our neighborhood covenants state only residential is allowed. When people bought homes in our neighborhood,we knew this was for single-family housing.This will change the surrounding property values.Nobody is opposed to the need of this type of housing. It just shouldn't be placed here and destroy our entire area for no reason. The issue isn't against lonely old people,the issue is where are you going to place this. There's very little house and land for this type of housing. There's no park within 2 miles and you don't want these residents walking around our neighborhood. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Sarah Jane Hunt,Attorney for Jennifer Piccione(Petitioner): 2 BZA Meeting Minutes 1-23-23 • I want to draw your attention to the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.The Board is to treat the UDO's Reasonable Accommodation request separately from the Special Exception request. • This residence request should pass the Special Exception since the Petitioner has indicated all the factors as to why that is the case. • A request for a reasonable accommodation, is requesting this Board accommodate these residents. If it isn't granted and because of their disabilities,they can't live in the community of their choice. • Our laws say that just because you have a disability doesn't mean you have to live in an institution or live in a certain part of town • The Fair Housing Act protects individuals with disabilities. People living here will have physical and cognitive disabilities and will need help caring for themselves. • Cannel Code doesn't limit the amount of people who could live together by blood or marriage. We are asking for an accommodation from this rule to allow people with a disability to live in a neighborhood with a family-like environment.Just because you age doesn't mean you should live in a traditional nursing home. • This accommodation should be analysis by a case-by-case basis,and doesn't present a"slippery slope" • There's no evidence of parking problems, lighting problems,traffic congestion,or property values decreasing. The only thing we heard is"we don't want them in our neighborhood"and that is not a valid defense. • We respectfully request the City to treat this home as functionally equivalent to a family Department Report: Angie Conn: • The Petitioner is seeking Special Exception approval from the BZA • Per the UDO,a Group Home of not more than 8 unrelated persons should be considered favorably • Per the UDO,and under State and Federal laws,a Group Home is considered as a residential use • The UDO does allow the BZA to approve the Special Exception with a condition or commitment • The HOA did change their stance,and they are now not supportive of this Special Exception request • TAC did review this proposal,and a few remaining comments relate to how the State will classify this structure as it relates to the remodel building permit being reviewed • The Planning Dept.recommends favorable consideration of this request with the following conditions:the Petitioner addresses remaining TAC review comments before the issuance of the remodel permit,and that the Petitioner complies with all applicable laws,regulations,and restrictive covenants and limitations as it relates to UDO Section 9.08(EX3),also with the adoption of the findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Board Comments: Alan: Do you know who the 8 residents will be living in this home?Do they need to be considered disabled to live here? Jennifer Piccione: Two people have contacted us,but we have not selected the 8 residents.They only qualify if they have a disability to live at this home. Alan: Did you personally meet with either the HOA or surrounding homeowners to explain your petition?Jennifer Piccione: I sent personal letters to the surrounding neighbors and the HOA. I've have had continue discussions with the HOA. We offered to have a personal meeting at the home,but no one took our offer.Alan: 20-year term seems like a very long time for this petition, so I would suggest 5-years instead. I don't see the outside of this home changing,but personally I think it would effectively change the neighborhood. Jim: Do you have any previous history of running a Group Home?Why did you choose Cannel as the location of your home?Jennifer Piccione:No previous group home,but I've had experience with my mother and sister being in Group Homes for the last 45 years. Both of my business partners live in Indian and I'm from the Midwest. I have I wanted to open a home in the Midwest my mother can use. Cannel was a great choice for us. Jim: Does Staff have any concerns with items 6 and 7 of the Reasonable Accommodation in the UDO?Angie Conn: The Department has no concerns with those.Jim: I'm in real estate banking,and there are these types of homes throughout the Midwest. They blend into the community. It is a trend going forward giving seniors an alternative place to live. IBrad: Is there a condition or provision in Indiana Code that predisposes Boards like ours to approve these types of Special Exceptions that carries conditions regarding the type of operation or the composition of the residence?Sergey Grechukhin: I'm not aware of Indiana Code like that,but our own UDO does provide certain conditions you can implement,but none of them relate to the type of residence.Our UDO does not impose any limitations on elderly or disabled. 3 BZA Meeting Minutes 1-23-23 Leo: Can Jack Roger approach the stand?Do you live in this neighborhood?Jack Rogers: Yes, I live on Horseshoe Lane. Leo: What's your recollection of who previously lived at this house?Jack Rogers: Two divorced men, and their kids would stay there on the weekends,but they didn't live there all the time. Leo: I'm challenged by the Petitioner's Findings of Fact.My understanding this house was owned by one dividual with 3 children. There were never 8 individual people living here. Does the Petitioner have facts that state 8 individuals living here?Who told you this?Jennifer Piccione: During the transaction of this real estate,we spoke with the sellers daily for a month. It was 2 adult men who lived here, unrelated,who were not married,and had 3 children each. If you pull up the online posting of this home,you can see the pictures all of the different bedrooms and 8 beds. 8 people lived at this house. The children might have lived with the other parent during the week. Leo: I walked this neighborhood and spoke to some of the neighbors,asking them who lived here.They said an adult male and his 3 kids lived here. I then spoke to the person who owned this home,and it was only him and his 3 kids.Jennifer Piccione: That is not the case. There might be personal reasons why he said that, and I don't want to get into this tonight. If you pull up the posting on Zillow,there are 8 different beds shown.Leo Dierckman: After speaking with the neighbors and the owner,they are saying only one adult and his 3 kids lived here. You are using this as logic on your Findings of Fact,and you are asking us to support this?On the issue of location,you are using an example of the Group Home on 33 Beech Drive,and this location has parking for 10 spots,and is the first house as you turn onto Beech Drive. This location is totally different and is not being impacted as I feel this neighborhood would be impacted. This is not apples to apples.Your arguments and Findings of Fact don't jive on the way you want us to rule on this. I'm not challenged on the use since that is a protect use by law. I'm challenge by the set of circumstances you presented,and the validly of this location and methods you are using to validate that you will not negatively affect the neighborhood. You state 8 people have lived here independently of each other,and I don't know that is the case. I don't find the Findings of Fact factual in nature. I don't feel this is an appropriate location for this use. A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Grabow to approve PZ-2022-00208 SE.,conditioned upon: • The Petitioner addresses remaining TAC review comments before the issuance of the remodel permit, • The Petitioner complies with all applicable laws,regulations,and restrictive HOA covenants and limitations as it relates to UDO Section 9.08(EX3), • The special exception approval is only valid for 5-year time limit(would need to come back to the BZA after 5 years),and • The implementation of Special Exception will not otherwise result in a violation of any limitations or prohibitions imposed by any applicable HOA restrictive covenants. Approved 3-2,Dierckman,Potasnik. TABLED TO FEB.27-(UV,V)Insurance Office Variances, 2. , 3. Docket No. PZ 2022-001 ' DO-Seetion-5:-3 ,5 hhiii Ground Sign e-requested-fer-residen-tial structure erted t.office 4. , (V)Pruett Residence,Home Occupation Variance. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: 6. Docket No.PZ-2022-00243 V UDO Section 5.18 Home Occupation Standards-Backyard area requested to be used. The site is located at 13787 Hickory Ridge Ct. (Springmill Crossing subdivision,Lot 163). It is zoned S2/Residence. Filed by Steven Lammers of MRL(Mandel Rauch&Lammers, P.C.),on behalf of Cary &Carrie Pruett, owners. Petitioner: Steven Lammers,Mandel Rauch&Lammers,P.C.: • With me tonight are the homeowners,Cary&Carrie Pruett • Coach Cary is now pursing his passion in coaching kids in agility soccer training 4 BZA Meeting Minutes 1-23-23