Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel,Indiana Docket No.: PZ-2022-00192 UV Petitioner: Marshall Holdings, LLC This matter came for a hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") on February 27, 2023 on the petition filed by Katelyn Klingler on behalf of Marshall Holdings, LLC(collectively "Petitioner") to request a Variance of Use to allow a commercial office use in a S-1 district(the"Variance"). The Property subject to the request is located at 4991 E. Main Street in Carmel, Indiana. The Petitioner was represented by Michael Rabinowitch of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP. Multiple remonstrators appeared at the hearing to oppose the Variance. The Board now finds and concludes as follows: 1. Petitioner requested a use variance for a commercial insurance office use from Carmel Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 2.03 that lists the permitted uses and special uses in the S 1 zoning district. Office use is not allowed under UDO Section 2.03. 2. The Property is located at 4991 E. Main St., Carmel, Indiana(the"Property"). 3. The Property consists of approximately 0.75 acres and has an existing residential structure that is in the state of disrepair. 4. The Property is surrounded by S-1 zoned parcels on all sides. Surrounding land uses include the Carmel Clay Schools Educational Services Center to the west and south,Carmel Dads' Club Badger Fields to the east, and single-family residential neighborhoods to the north(Trails at Avian Glen and Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit). 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 and exhibits of Petitioner; (e)Testimonies, exhibits, and letters of remonstrators. 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(B) states that variances of use from the terms of the UDO, in accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7-4-914.8,may be approved only upon a determination in writing 1 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 need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved; d) the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought; and e) the approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish whether the granting of this commercial use will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Remonstrators who appeared at the hearing testified that the enjoyment of their properties would be negatively affected because the residential properties to the north constitute an established neighborhood with no commercial uses within it. Also, Remonstrators pointed out that the proposed commercial use would increase traffic on an already-busy street. 9. No sufficient evidence was presented whether the granting of this use variance would affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner. Remonstrators presented their concerns regarding the commercial office's negative effect on their property values. Petitioner claimed that property values would not be affected because of high quality of the proposed insurance office that will look like a residential building. Neither Petitioner nor Remonstrators presented professional assessments or other like evidence to support their respective concerns and statements. 10. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the need for the variance arose from some condition peculiar to the property involved. The Property is suited for its current use, has a common rectangular shape, does not have any topographical irregularities or any other peculiar conditions. Although it is surrounded by institutional uses on three sides, several like properties exist along Main Street that are successfully used as residential properties. 11. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the strict application of the terms of the UDO would constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the Property for which the variance is sought, and therefore did not satisfy this criterion. The proposed office can be located in any one suitable business or commercial district and as such a chosen location is nothing more than a preference. Further,although Petitioner pointed out that the Property has been listed for sale for a significant amount of time, Petitioner currently does not own the Property and therefore has not been harmed by the prolonged lack of interest. Also, Remonstrators pointed out that the Property is listed significantly above its assessed value, and lack of interest may be due to unreasonably high listing price. Finally, the current owner made the Property even less attractive by removing nearly all the mature trees and other vegetation from the Property and stripping/gutting the residential building, constituting a self-created condition. 12. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the approval would not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), because several Objectives of the Plan would be in direct conflict with the proposed use if the Variance were to be granted. Specifically, 2 Objectives 1.4, 4.1 and 6.1 are aimed at preserving stable single family residential neighborhoods in Carmel, call for applying traditional neighborhood design principles and, where appropriate, call for reinforcement of established character. The Property is in the middle of an established S- 1 single family residential district with no similar commercial uses in close proximity. 13. 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 a use variance is hereby DENIED. The Board points out that as a part of its application, Petitioner also applied for two developmental standards variances.The denial of this use variance makes the request for developmental standards variances moot, and they are similarly denied. Adopted this 27th day of March, 2023. 1 CHAIRPERSON, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals XA)2 SE TARY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals 3