Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket for HO 06-23-25BZA Info Packet Docket No: PZ-2025-00109 V Petitioner: Jonathon Fruchte Address: 9610 Deerfield Mall, Carmel, IN Introduction The petitioner, Jonathon Fruchte, requests a variance to UDO Section 5.02 (B)(1)(a)(i): 25-ft Minimum setback of an accessory building behind the principal building; 56-ft located in front of the principal building. The variance will allow the petitioner to place a 16’ x 10’ shed along the southern property line, inside their fence, and in the same location as the existing shed, which shall be replaced. The petitioner’s home was built in 1970 and faces inward towards the neighborhood. Due to the front setback oZ of Deerfield Mall, the front yard is much larger than the backyard. In 2017, the city acquired a 20’ strip of land adjacent to the petitioner’s southern property line further reducing the size of the backyard. Now, under the UDO, the yard adjacent to 96th is also considered a “front yard”, making it impossible to place a shed in a way that meets the UDO and makes sense with the look and feel of the property. The only solution is a variance to the UDO. Statement of Variance request The petitioner requests a variance to UDO Section 5.02 (B)(1)(a)(i): 25-ft Minimum setback of an accessory building behind the principal building; 56-ft located in front of the principal building. The variance will allow the petitioner to place a 16’ x 10’ shed along the southern property line, inside their fence, and in the same location as the existing shed, which shall be replaced. Statement of Support As you’ll see in the Finding of Facts statement, the variance will improve safety and the general welfare of the community by allowing the shed to be located adjacent to the property line bordering 96th Street. The variance will allow the shed to be placed in a logical location that better fits the look, feel, and design of our property and the adjacent properties. Under the UDO, this is not possible. Under the Unified Development, Placement of the shed is limited to a very small area of my property, which, based on the orientation of my home, would be aesthetically unappealing to us and our neighbors. The UDO-acceptable areas are heavily treed, further limiting locations without cutting trees down. The ground is sloped in the acceptable area, providing proper groundwater drainage, which we do not want to disrupt. The sloped ground would cause diZiculties in placing the shed in a dry and level location. The acceptable areas are located far away from our garden and garage and would disrupt the look, feel, and flow of our property and neighborhood. The proposed location and design have been approved by the Deerfield Civic League HOA. Location Maps This is the location of the petitioner’s property. The red box is the location of the petitioner’s current shed and the proposed location of the new shed. The is a permitted 6’ solid cedar fence separating the property and 96th Street. The shed will be placed inside the fence and will only block views of traZic, not our neighborhood. Reductions of all plans Here is a rendering of the shed design. It will be painted blue to match our home FINDINGS OF FACT SHEET - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE CARMEL ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Docket No.: _________ PZ-2025-00109 V__________________________ Petitioner: __________Jonathon Fruchte_____________________ 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The variance will allow me to place a shed inside my fence. It is a safe location situated away from other properties and will improve the morale and welfare of my neighbors because the variance location will not impact our views or our neighbors’ views or our beautiful neighborhood. The variance location will also improve the safety of our backyard by adding more protection between our home and traFic on 96th Street. In the Fall of 2023, a driver of a car had a medical emergency, drove through the roundabout and a fence before entering our yard, and collided with a tree on our property. Our children and neighborhood children play in our backyard, and more barriers between our property and 96th street improve safety. Without the variance, the shed would be placed in a highly observable area far less aesthetically appealing than the location requested in the variance. Our neighbors and HOA agree with these statements. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be aFected in a substantially adverse manner because: The variance will allow the shed to be placed in a logical location that better fits the look, feel, and design of our property and the adjacent properties. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Unified Development to the property will result in practical diFiculties in the use of the property because: The practical diFiculties of following the Unified Development include: Under the Unified Development, Placement of the shed is limited to a very small area of my property, which, based on the orientation of my home, would be aesthetically unappealing to us and our neighbors. The acceptable areas are heavily treed, further limiting locations without cutting trees down. The ground is sloped in the acceptable area, providing proper groundwater drainage, which we do not want to disrupt. The sloped ground would cause diFiculties in placing the shed in a dry and level location. The acceptable areas are located far away from our garden and garage and would disrupt the look, feel, and flow of our property and neighborhood. 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