Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEA.LS HEARING OFFICER: DEPARTMENT REPORT December 17, 2007 Jay Residence The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07110021 V Section 25.02.02. Fence in excess of 6 feet in height The site is located at 302 Pintail Court and is zoned S2/Single-family residential. Filed by John Jay, owner. General Info: The site is immediately adjacent to Illinois Street. which had not been constructed when the house was built. After the road was constructed, the petitioner built a wooden privacy fence to screen his property from the street. A portion of the fence was installed on a retaining wall, making it taller than the six feet pC1l11itted per the Zoning Ordinance. Analysis: The fence is behind the front building line of the house, and encloses the rear yard and portions of the side yard. The site, which is at the end of a cul-de- sac, is shaped approximately Iikc a parallelogram. A drainage swale with beehive ams adjacent to the site on the northwest; the retaining wall is adjacent to this swale, and prevents the site from eroding into the swale and negatively affccting drainage. The retaining wall is approximately two fect in height, making the overall fence height in this location approximately eight feet. The retaining wall and tall portion of the fence are located approximately forty feet back from the edge of the property, and are screened by evergreens. The County Drainage Board has reviewed the wall and fence, and issued a Non-Enforcement Permit on November 26. Findings of Fact: Fence taner than six feet. 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: two feet is a minor deviation, and will not be very visible from the street. 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: two feet is a minor deviation, and will not be very visible from the street. 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 retaining wall would have to be removed, thereby negatively impacting drainage flow. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 07110021 V after all conce1l1S have been addressed.