Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket for HO 01-27-25 The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Hearing Officer Docket Number issued for this item are the following: (V) Thiel Fence Height Variance. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval for a fence: Docket No. PZ-2024-00232 V UDO Section 5.09(B) Maximum 42-inch fence allowed in front yard with at least 25% visibility; 48-in (4-ft) aluminum fence requested. The 0.49-acre site is located at 12443 Pebblepointe Pass (Bayhill subdivision, Lot 17). It is zoned S2/Residence. Filed by Wendy Thiel, owner. Introduction of project: Project is for a variance of fence in both height and positioning at 12443 Pebblepointe Pass, which is a corner lot with side yard considered as “front yard”. Statement of Variance Request: This variance request is submitted to seek approval for a modification to the standard fence height and location. Specifically, we request permission to install a 48-inch aluminum fence, exceeding the typical 42-inch height limit, and to adjust the fence placement beyond the recommended location. Statement of Support: The request for a 48-inch fence, as opposed to the standard proposed height, is driven by several important factors. Firstly, the existing mature landscaping on the property provides significant challenges for installation where proposed without removal of trees which would a?ect the privacy and aesthetics of the property. The proposed fence height of 48 inches will complement this landscaping, ensuring the fence is e?ective without disrupting the aesthetic or functionality of the greenery. Additionally, given the size and height of the Great Danes on the property, a taller fence is essential to prevent them from easily leaping over or escaping. Therefore, the request for a 48-inch fence is reasonable and necessary to meet both the safety of the pets and the integrity of the landscaping. FINDINGS OF FACT SHEET - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE CARMEL ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (Petitioner to fill out 1-3 + first two blanks) Docket No.: _PZ-2024-00232 V Petitioner: Wendy C. Thiel 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: Approval of this variance for the fence height and location will not be injurious to public health or the general welfare of the community for the following reasons: 1. Safety and Visibility: The proposed fence height and location will not obstruct sightlines for drivers or pedestrians, ensuring that traffic flow and pedestrian movement remain safe. The design will maintain adequate visibility at key intersections and driveways, thereby reducing the risk of accidents. 2. Compatibility with Surrounding Properties: The variance request respects the character of the neighborhood and does not create adverse impacts on neighboring properties. The fence will blend with the existing landscape, enhancing the property’s aesthetic value without creating any unsightly or intrusive structures that would disrupt the community's harmony. 3. No Negative Impact on Property Value: There is no evidence to suggest that the increased fence height or altered location will negatively affect property values within the surrounding area. On the contrary, the proposed variance may provide enhanced privacy and security, factors which are often viewed favorably by property owners. 4. No Disruption of Public Services or Utilities: The fence will be located in a way that does not interfere with public utilities, services, or infrastructure. There will be no encroachment onto public rights-of-way, ensuring that services can continue without interruption. 5. Compliance with Safety Standards: The proposed fence will comply with all relevant construction codes, ensuring that it is structurally sound and will not pose a hazard to public health. It will also meet all requirements for safety, such as appropriate materials and construction methods. 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 because: The use and value of the adjacent property will not be adversely affected by the proposed actions. The adjacent area is situated within the existing property lines, and the fence is located within the boundaries of the established mature landscaping. This ensures that no encroachment or disruption will occur beyond the property limits. The existing landscaping further provides a natural buffer, maintaining the aesthetic integrity and privacy of both properties. Consequently, the proposed changes will not interfere with the functionality, access, or overall value of the adjacent property, preserving its current state and ensuring no negative impact. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Unified Development to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: The strict application of the terms of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to the property presents significant practical challenges due to existing mature trees and landscaping, which have established a unique character and natural environment on the site. These trees and landscaping elements provide important aesthetic and environmental benefits, and any modifications to accommodate the UDC’s requirements could disrupt the established ecosystem and visual harmony of the property. Additionally, the current fencing, as stipulated by the UDC, would not be adequate to contain large breeds such as Great Danes due to their considerable height and jumping ability. The existing fence configuration does not provide the necessary height or structural integrity to prevent these dogs from escaping, posing both a safety risk and a practical difficulty in adhering to the UDC’s requirements. Therefore, any enforcement of these terms without modification would not only interfere with the existing landscaping but also fail to meet the practical needs of safely containing the animals on the property. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals that Development Standards Variance Docket No. ___________________________ is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this _______________ day of __________________________________, 20 _______. _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ HEARING OFFICER, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ SECRETARY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Conditions of approval of the Board, if any, are listed on the Letter of Grant.