HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
September 22, 2008
lOh. Danbury Estates Lot 8 Addition
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08080022 V Section 10.04.03.8.1 Reduced side yard setback
The site is located at 14537 Dublin Drive and is zoned R4/Medium-density residential.
Filed by Beth Bennett, owner.
,-~
l ~
I
General Info: The petitioner is requesting permission to construct
an enclosed room and deck addition on the rear of an existing house,
adjacent to the floodplain, with a reduced side yard setback.
Analysis: The subject site is within the Danbury Estates subdivision,
and is a .23-acre lot. The proposed addition would sit 7 feet away
from the property line; minimum sctbacks in the R4 District are ten
feet, 25 feet aggregate. While the subdivision does not appear to
have been platted as a Residential Open Space Ordinance (ROSO)
subdivision and while there are no platted setback or build-to lines
on the recorded plat, recorded covenants indicate minimum side
yard setbacks as being five feet. The majority of houses in Danbury
Estates appear to have been built with reduced setbacks.
The site is also partially within the floodway, however, thc
petitioner, at the Department of Engineering's suggestion, has modified the site plan from the original submittal so
that no part of the proposed addition encroaches into the floodway. If this request is approved, the petitioner will
need to continue to work with the Department of Engineering and the Penuits Department to ensure that all
requirements regarding structures adjacent to the floodway are met.
There are similar structures and additions throughout the neighborhood. The proposcd addition would be located to
the rear of the house, and would match the house in style and materials. Provided there is no negative impact to the
floodway, the overall impact of the proposed addition should be minimal.
Findings of Fact: Reduced setback
I. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community because: the addition would not encroach into the flood way, and would be
similar to existing additions.
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 addition would not encroach into the floodway, and would
be similar to existing additions.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because: an addition could not be built without either the grant of a
variance, or encroachment into the Ooodway, or both.
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 08080022 V arrer all
concerns have been addresscd.