HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 08-27-01
).
~)
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 2001
Page 10 of 14
I. Old Business.
Ii. Moehl Residence (V-55-01)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4: Lots in order to
build on a parcel with 23.89:f: feet of frontage on a public street. The site is located at
1866 Valley Drive. The site is zoned R-1/Residence.
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the
granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing
that:
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community;
No evidence has been presented to suggest that the approval of this petition would
be injurious to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.
2. 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
It is the Department's opinion that the use and value of the area adjacent to the
property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner by the resident's
accessing across a 23.89-foot-wide public street frontage.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in
practical difficulties in use of the property.
The parcel in question appears to have been created before the Zoning and
Subdivision Control Ordinances for Carmel were adopted in 1959. Therefore,
this property appears to be a legal, pre-existing nonconformity. Practical
difficulty arises from the strict application of the requirement of adequate public
street frontage, which has been consistently applied by the City as fifty feet to
parallel the requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for platted lots.
Without this variance, the property becomes ineligible for an Improvement
Location Permit.
On July 2. 2001. the Department was copied on correspondence dated June 28.
2001. from Mr. Moehl to Mr. Taggart Birge of Bose McKinney & Evans regarding
coordination of landscape buffering efforts. The petitioner requested to be tabled on the
July 23. 2001. agenda due to fact that the tree inventory requested by the Board at the
June 25. 2001. meeting was not yet complete. The tree inventory was delivered to the
Department on August 17. 2001.
At the Public Hearing it was suggested that the prior owner of this property. Mr.
Greg Matters. had appeared before the Board to petition for the same Developmental
Standards Variance. A search of the Board's records did not reveal any petitions relating
to the subiect property. nor did it reveal any petitions filed under the name "Matters." If
Page 10
j
; Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 2001
Page 11 of14
such a petition was filed. it was apparently never assigned a Docket Number. nor did it
appear on the Board's agenda for consideration.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition. All
evidence available to the Department suggests that the subiect property is a legal. pre-
existing nonconformity. and that. therefore. hardship does exist on the parcel.
Page 11