HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel,Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2023-00031 V and PZ-2023-00037 V
Petitioners: Andrew Wert of Church, Church, little & Antrum on behalf of Armen
Abrahanyan
This matter came for a public hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the
"Board") on March 27, 2023, on the petition filed by Andrew Wert of Church, Church, Hittle &
Antrum on behalf of Armen Abrahanyan, (collectively "Petitioner") to request a Development
Standards Variances from Cannel's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 5.66 D-
Food stands shall be removed from the premises when not in operation and Section 5.66 H —
Customer seating areas associated with food stands prohibited. Mr. Abrahanyan operates a food
truck that is usually stationed at 105 W. Carmel Dr., Carmel, Indiana("Premises").
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
VARIANCE REQUESTS PZ-2023-00031 V and PZ-2023-00037 V
1. Petitioner requested developmental standards variances from UDO Section 5.66
This section requires, in part,that food stand be removed from the premises when not in operation
and does not allow customer seating areas associated with the food stand. Petitioner requests to
permanently keep the stand at the Premises without having to move it when not in operation and
to have a seating area located on an existing patio beside the existing primary building at the
Premises. In September of 2022, Petitioner obtained a temporary use permit to operate the stand
with a condition that the stand be moved from the Premises every night. However, Petitioner
disregarded that condition even after being specifically instructed to move the stand. Additionally,
Petitioner disregarded Department of Community Services staff's instructions regarding allowable
signage.
2. The Premises is located in I-1 Industrial zoning district and neighbors B-3 business
and C-1 Commercial zoned districts.
3. 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, and site plan and photos;
(b) DOCS Department Report;
(c) Relevant portions of the City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance; and
(d) Testimony of Petitioner.
4. Petitioner has paid the required fee, filed all necessary documents, and
demonstrated compliance with all public notice requirements in this matter for consideration by
1
the Board.
5. 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.
6. There was no evidence presented that granting of the variances would be injurious
to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
7. There was no evidence presented that granting of the variances would affect the use
of the area adjacent to the property in a substantially adverse manner.
8. 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 did not present
any evidence demonstrating that the Premises cannot be used without practical difficulty for any
of the uses allowed in the IL-Industrial zoning. Regarding his request to keep the stand overnight
at the Premises, Petitioner stated that the practical difficulty created by following the terms of the
UDO is that it can be problematic to disconnect water and electric utilities from the stand every
night during colder months. However, this is not a practical difficulty that is related to the use of
the property, instead it is a self-created condition and an inherent characteristic of a food truck or
a food stand- they are not intended to be permanent restaurant facilities. Additionally, Petitioner
previously demonstrated disregard for UDO rules and imposed conditions by not moving the stand
from the Premises as required,and therefore the Board has no confidence that conditions requested
by the staff would be followed if the petition were to be approved. Petitioner can still operate his
food stand under current UDO regulations even if it would be inconvenient to move the stand
every night.
Addressing Petitioner's request to allow a seating area, other than profit maximizing,
Petitioner presented no evidence why it would be impractical to use the stand without seating area
in front or around it. It appears that Petitioner would like to reap the benefits of a permanent
restaurant setting without providing amenities and following the rules that restaurants are required
to provide and follow under State and local laws,rules and regulations.
9. 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.
2
DECISION
Based on the facts stated above, application for developmental standards variances PZ-2023-
00031 V and PZ-2023-00037 V are hereby DENIED.
Adopted this 22th day of May, 2023.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
iht'
31JitY
SECRE RY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
3