HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel,Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2023-00126 V
Petitioner: Sheref Nessem
BACKGROUND
This matter came for hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board")
on July 24, 2023, on the petition of Rob Thomas of Thomas Law Group, LLC on behalf of Sheref
Nessem (the "Petitioner") to approve a Development Standards Variance from Carmel Unified
Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 5.02(B)(3) Accessory Building and Use Standards,
Maximum Ground Floor Area.The Property subject to the request is located in the College Heights
Subdivision. The property is zoned R3/Residence and is .36 acres.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
1. The Petitioner requested a developmental standards variance from UDO Section
5.02(B)(3)that requires the ground floor area of garages and accessory buildings to not
exceed 75%of the ground floor area of the principal building. The Petitioner requested
to build an additional 20' by 30' detached accessory structure, causing the combined
square footage of the ground floor acres of the garages and/or accessory buildings to
be 102%of the ground floor area of the principal building.
2. The subject Property is located at 511 E. 111th St., Carmel, Indiana (the "Property")
and is zoned R3 and is .36 acres. The Property is part of the College Heights
subdivision.
3. Single family detached dwellings zoned R3surround the property on the East, West,
and South sides. To the North are single family detached dwellings zoned R1. Further
to the Northeast is Central Park, zoned P 1.
4. 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. Packet, testimonies, exhibits, and letters of remonstrators.
5. 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.
1
6. 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;
c. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property.
7. There was evidence presented that granting the variance would be injurious to the
public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. According to the
City's Code Enforcement, the owner of the Property has been running an HVAC
business out of this home without actually residing there.The subject property is zoned
residential and is surrounded by other residential properties. Without proper approval
of the home occupation or a use variance, a business in a residential neighborhood is
improper and is likely to affect general welfare of the community.
8. There was no evidence presented that granting the variance would affect the use and
value of the area adjacent to the Property included in the variance in a substantially
adverse manner.
9. The Petitioner did not present any evidence that the strict application of the terms of
the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. In considering
whether there is practical difficulty in complying with the UDO, there are three non-
exclusive factors: (1)whether"significant economic injury"will result if the ordinance
is enforced; (2) whether the injury is self-created; and (3) whether there are feasible
alternatives. Caddyshack Looper, LLC v. Long Beach Advisory Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
22 N.E.3d 694, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). There is no significant economic injury if
UDO is to be strictly applied. The Property is suited for its current,residential use,and
the Petitioner indicated that he would use the home for such use by renting it out. The
need for the variance arises from the owner's hope to rent the property for more money
with the addition. The injury is self-created as the additional accessory building is a
personal preference and an attempt to maximize rental profits. The property would still
be suitable for the intended use, and the Petitioner did not present evidence suggesting
otherwise. Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the strict application of
the terms of the UDO would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.
10. 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
1
DECISION
Based on the facts stated above, application for developmental standards variance PZ-2023-00126
V is hereby DENIED.
Adopted th' 27 ay of September, 2023.
c
C AIRPERSON, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
S RETARY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
3