HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT—SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2023-00106 SE
Petitioners: Elham Alhassoon and Ahmad Al-Maaitah
BACKGROUND
This matter came for hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals(the"Board")on June
26, 2023 on the petition of Elham Alhassoon and Ahmad Al-Maaitah (collectively the "Petitioners")to
approve a special exception for the proposed short term residential rental located at 103 E. 106th St,
Carmel, Indiana, 46033 (the "Property"). Petitioners previously operated a short-term rental at the
Property without first obtaining a permit form the City of Carmel (the "City") pursuant to Unified
Development Ordinance ("UDO") Sections 5.72A and 9.08. Petitioners represented that they do not
reside at the Property and use it as an investment opportunity. The Property is zoned R-1, Residential.
At the hearing Petitioners represented themselves. A neighbor appeared and spoke against the
Petition citing various concerns including loud parties, inadequate parking, and visitors blocking his
driveway.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
1. Carmel Unified Development Ordinance("UDO") Sections 5.72 and 9.08 address regulations
relating to special exceptions for short-term rentals in the City and list specific criteria for Board's
consideration for approval/denial.
2. UDO defines Short Term Residential Rental Unit as a dwelling, or portion thereof, that is
rented or leased to transient guests by a permanent resident of the dwelling for a period of less than thirty
consecutive calendar days. In turn,a permanent resident is a person who occupies a dwelling for at least
60 consecutive days with intent to establish the dwelling as his/her primary residence. The original
application for a short-term rental permit shall not generally be entitled to favorable consideration.
3. UDO Section 5.72A states that the purpose of the ordinance is to benefit the general public by
minimizing adverse impacts on established residential neighborhoods and the owners and residents of
properties in these neighborhoods resulting from the conversion of residential properties to tourist and
transient use.
4. Reviewing a Special Exception application,the Board shall give consideration to the particular
needs and circumstances of each application and shall examine the following items as they relate to the
proposed Special Exception: surrounding zoning and land uses, access to public streets, driveway and
curb cut location in relation to other sites,parking location and arrangement,trash and material storage,
necessary exterior lighting, and protective restrictions and/or covenants.
5. The Board, in approving or rejecting a Special Exception, shall base his/her decision upon the
following factors as they relate to the above listed items: 1)The economic factors related to the proposed
Special Exception, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding
property values; 2) The social/neighborhood factors related to the proposed Special Exception, such as
1
compatibility with existing uses in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed
Special Exception will affect neighborhood integrity; and 3) The effects of proposed Special Exception
on vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Exception is
proposed. UDO Sections 5.72 and 9.08.
6. Except for letter of explanation provided to the Board, Petitioners did not present evidence
supporting the granting of the Special Exception. Rather Petitioners offered the Board to ask questions.
In their responses, Petitioners stated that they do not reside at the Property and will only monitor the
Property by means of remote surveillance such as a doorbell camera.
7. Although in their explanation letter Petitioners represented that they have strict policies
relating to noise, parking, and parties held at the Property, their neighbor testified that these policies
were not always followed. Specifically, remonstrator indicated that guests parked on the street blocking
his driveway at least on one occasion, that trash was left at the Property that spilled into his, and that
some guests had loud parties affecting enjoyment of his property.
8. In making its determination,the Board considered the following evidence:
(a) Petitioner's application and supporting documents, including notices, receipts, and
attachments.
(b)Packet and Department of Community Services Report;
(c) Relevant portions of the City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance;
(d)Answers of Petitioners;
(f)Testimony of remonstrator.
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.
DECISION
Petitioners,not being permanent residents of the Property are not eligible for the short-term rental permit.
Additionally,Petitioners chose not to present a case to the Board but opted out to only answer questions
about the Petition. Finally, Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Petitioners did not have
appropriate parking arrangement for the number of people allowed at the Property, and that the
Property's use as a short-term rental has negatively affected surrounding properties and neighborhood
integrity. It is therefore the decision of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals that Petitioner's application,
Docket No. PZ-2023-00106 SE, is DENIED.
Adopted this 24 day of July, 2023.
CHAI ERSON, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
S ( ETA , Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
2