HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-21-07
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
May 21, 2007
24-27h. CW Weidler's Addition, Lot 66 (part)
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 07040005 V Section 8.04.03.B side yard setback
Docket No. 07040006 V Section 8.04.03.A front yard setback
Docket No. 07040007 V Section 8.04.03.F lot cover %
Docket No. 07040008 V Section 8.04.03.D rear yard setback
The site is located at 230 5th Street NE and is zoned R-2/Residence.
Filed by Myles Hager.
General Info:
The petitioner seeks variance
, approval construct an addition onto
his house, which would encroach
into the rear and side yard setbacks
as well as increase lot coverage
beyond the permitted amount. There
is also an existing garage which is
located to the front of the house, and
which encroaches into the front yard
setback. The lot measures 118.5 feet
by 75 feet, and is adjacent to the east
of an undeveloped alley. Other lots
I in the area have similar patterns of
development and lot coverage.
Analysis:
The petitioner is proposing
rebuilding the garage in line with the existing house, and connecting them. The house currently measures
670 square feet, which is less than the minimum I, I 00 square feet required by the R2 Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed addition would add approximately 600 square feet ofliving space, as well as re-orient the
garage doors to face the side, rather than the street. Several other parcels in the area appear to have
similar lot coverage and setback issues as those proposed here; the additions would not be out of character
for the area. The parcel is located on a street which is heavily wooded, angles sharply, and dead-ends.
The rear additions would not be easily visible from the road, and the parcel backs onto a partially-
wooded, undeveloped parcel.
Findings of Fact: side, rear, and front setbacks
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the community because: the house and garage were built many years ago, to
different standards, and the proposed additions are not dissimilar from those on surrounding lots.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be not
affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the house and garage were built many
years ago, to different standards, and the proposed additions are not dissimilar from those on
surrounding lots.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in a
hardship in the use of the property because: the existing pattern of development does not
conform to current zoning standards; meeting those standards would likely necessitate razing the
garage and house, and rebuilding.
Findings of Fact: lot coverage
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the community because: the house and garage were built many years ago, to
different standards, and the proposed additions are not dissimilar from those on surrounding lots.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be not
affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the house and garage were built many
years ago, to different standards, and the proposed additions are not dissimilar from those on
surrounding lots.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in a
hardship in the use of the property because: the existing pattern of development does not
conform to current zoning standards; meeting those standards would likely necessitate razing the
garage and house, and rebuilding.
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 07040005 V (side
yard setback); 07040006 V (front yard setback); 07040007 V (lot cover %); and 07040008 V (rear yard
setback).