HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact
IN THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
IN RE APPLlCA nON FOR VARIANCE
OF USE APPROVAL
of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
08060008 UV
ST. VINCENT HEALTH, INC.,
Applicant
September 22, 2008
DECISION
~-L; .,.'. '~..~ ,'.O.,\~.", ,I ':, ~ c'~
After a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of Indiana, the
Canl1el Zoning Ordinance (the' '~Ordinance") and the Rules of Procedure of the Board, the Board
hereby denies, by a 3-2 vote, the application for Variance orUse approval (the "Application")
:filed by the Applicant.
, Members voting to deny: Broach; Donnan; Plavchak.
Member voting to approve: Osbom; Torres.
Recused and not participating: Dierckman; Hawkins.
FINDINGS
In accordance with r.c. 936-7-4-918.4 and the Ordinance, the Board hereby detenniiles
that the Application should be denied based 011 the following:
1. The Applicant did not establish that the proposed use will not be injurious to the
public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The proposed use would be closer to a denser
residential area than other similar uses that were both approved and rejected in past cases. The
noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents. There is evidehce that
medical helicopters throughout the United States, including in central Indial1a \vithin the past
month, have crashed causing property damage and fatalities. The rash of these crashes raises
concern for the safety of adjoining property owners. "No Fly" zones are difficult to enforce,
particularly in inclement weather. The proximity of multiple helipads to one another may create
a hazard for air traffic which, in tum, may create ground hazards below. flight paths. The
frequency ofthe flights to the proposed use cannot be determined with precision.
2. The Applicant has not shown that the use and value of the area adjacent to the
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. In
addition to the safety and noise concerns expressed in Paragraph 1, above, the Applicant
conceded that there is no evidence that the adjacent properties would not suffer a substantially
adverse decline in value.
3. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the need for the proposed use arises from
condition peculiar to the property involved. The Ordinance does not allow helipads on the
subject property without a variance. Helipads are not a "natural conditi'on" of the subject
propeliy. There are two helipads (Conseco and Clarian North) in close proximity to the subject
propeliy, each of which is or can be made available to the Applicant for use. As there is no
condition peculiar to the subject property, the grant ofthe requested variance would be an
unwarranted intrusion into an established adjacent residential area.
4. The Applicant has notdernonstrated that strict application of the temlS of the
Ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the subject propCliy. There are
two other helipads proximate to the Applicant's use, and those helipads are or can be made
available to the Applicant. The Applicant has operated with use of only one nearby helipad in
2
the past, and has, by its own evidence, functioned successfully. The frequency and duration of
the anticipated flights to the Applicant's use can be handled by one, let alone two, nearby
helipads. Since the Applicant had the opportunity in 2001 to seek a helipad for the subject
property, but elected not to do so at that time, in the interim period the Applicant's use has
operated successfully.
5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed use would not interfere
substantially with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan proposes long-tenn
residential development to the west ofthe subject property. To protect that development, some
reasonable limitations on Regional Commercial Employment Centers are necessary. Denial of a
variance for a helipad, in an area where there are already two helipads available to the Applicant,
is a reasonable limitation. In securing site plan approval the Applicant expressly stated that its
facility would not be a full emergency room and would be limited to a "chestpain center". Use
of a helipad would be more consistent with a full emergency room than with the promised chest
pain center, notwithstanding some emergency attributes of a chest pain center.
Filed in the Office of the Cam1el Board of Zoning Appeals this J day of October, 2008.
'rV
Kent Broach
Acting Chairperson
ATTEST:
/1 . A ...
. ..-1 ", ~/ ?}
(~h~ ~#J-/
Connie Tingley Ii (I
Secretary
3
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
08060008 UV
-----~----------------------------------------------------
Petitioner:
St. Vincent Health. Inc.
FINDINGS OF FACT. USE VARIANCE (Ballot Sheet)
2.
3.
4.
5.
DATED THIS 22nd
DAY OF September
Page 7 of 9 - Z:\sharodlforms\BZA applicalions\ Use Variance Applicalion rev. 01111/2008
Docket No.:
Petitioner:
1.
2.
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carmel, Indiana
08060008 UV
81. Vincent Health. Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------
FINDINGS OF FACT ~ USE VARIANCE (Ballot Sheet)
3.
4.
5.
DATED THIS
22nd
September
Board~2:m~ ~
DAY OF
Page 7 of 9 - Z:lsharedlform.IBZA application.1 u.. Variance Application rev. 01/11/2008
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF,ZONING APPEALS
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
08060008 UV
----------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner:
Sf. Vincent Health. Inc.
~-~~~~~-~--~---~-------------------------------------
FINDINGS OF FACT - USE VARIANCE (Ballot Sheet)
1.
2.
3.
=rJfo)....--....---~
-----~----
-----~----- -
4.
5.
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF September
'20~/:L
Board Mamber' ....' /fJ..~
"
Page 7 of 9 - Z~\shared\forms\BZA appllcalions\ Use Variance Applica,on rev. 01/11/2008
CARMELlCLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
08060008 UV
Petitioner:
St. Vincent Health. Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------
FINDINGS OF FACT. USE VARIANCE (Ballot Sheet)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DATED THIS 22nd
DAY OF Sep'tember
Page 7 of 9 - Z:\sharod\forms\BZA applicationsl u.. Vanance ApplicaUon rev. 01/11/2008
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
08060008 UV
~------------------------------
Petitioner:
___~~nceQiHe~lib~lD~~______________~__~_~~_~
FINDINGS OF FACT - USE VARIANCE (Ballot Sheet)
1,
-------~~-------------------------------------------~-------------------------------
2._______~____~_________________
3.
4.
5.____
DAY OF Sep,temb'er 20 08 ,
_______t ~_
DATED THIS 22nd
Board Member
Page 7 of g - Z:\sharedIFoons\BZA .pplicalioa'\ Us. Varia ace Applicaiioa rev.01/11/200B