HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 03-23-09r--,
i
G\~~~AI EAR~FC
~Q. _ ~/1~p ~ •
C~ o f C aim el
', ~ „o W
\\ND I ANj
MINUTES
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 23, 2009
6:00 PM
Council Chambers
1
Present: James Hawkins (President)
Kent Broach
Leo Dierckman
Madeleine Torres
Connie Tingley (Recording Secretary)
Absent: Eazlene Plavchak
Staff members in attendance: Mike Hollibaugh, DOCS Director
Christine Barton-Holmes, Planning Administrator
Rachel Boone, Planning Administrator
Legal Counsel: John Molitor
Previous Minutes:
On a motion made by Leo Dierckrrian and seconded by Madeleine Torres:
The Minutes for the meeting dated February 23, 2009 were approved as circulated.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Department Report: Christine Barton-Holmes
• Tabled Item 4h, Docket No. 09020004 CA, Uptown Partners Fence Commitment Amend
• Item l lh, Docket No. 09020014 A, 646 Johnson Drive Appeal needed waiver of notice
o Noticed with incorrect date
o Corrected notice four days late; only 21 days notice
LJ
Legal Report: John Molitor
• Advised an Appeal would be filed from last month's meeting
o Appeal had not been received
o Recommended canceling Executive Session scheduled at end of this meeting
Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins:
Notice be waived for Item llh.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 1 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
Public Hearing:
1-3h. Firestone Michigan Rd. - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 09010003 V Ch. 25.07.02-08 b) Total number of signs
Docket No. 09010004 V Ch. 25.07.02-08 c) Maximum sign area
Docket No. 09010005 V Ch. 25.07.02-08 e) 2 signs not facing a ROW
The site is located at 11055 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned B-2Business, within the US 421 Overlay
Zone. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney & Evans.
Present for Petitioner:
Steve Granner, Bose McKinney & Evans, Zoning Consultant
David Smalley, Firestone Real Estate Project Manager
Freeman Smith, Architectural Graphic Inc., Project Manager
• Proposed building free-standing service center
• Previous ADLS and variance approvals to accommodate development
• Number and type of signs allowed
o Single tenant building is permitted one sign, either:
^ Ground sign set back minimum 5 feet from right-of--way
• 75 squaze feet permitted per building frontage
• 75 square feet facing north and 75 squaze feet facing south on Michigan
Road (the front and back of one sign) OR
^ Wall sign of 75 square feet on the front/west facade
o Ground sign not permitted by landlord on this outlot '
o Variance for three wall signs
^ North and south facades similaz to ground sign
^ Third sign over entrance to building; pazallel to Michigan Road
• Each sign 48.83 squaze feet
• Maximum sign azea
o Approximately 146 squaze feet total
• Location
o Ordinance allows front/west facade sign
o North and south wall signs critical for identification along Michigan Road
o Access to'site is south of the property '
o Location map indicated with entry
o Access site from Michigan Road onto West Point Drive and behind outlots
• Approved revised elevations shown with gable end and roof line changes
o Staff supported two wall signs; west and north before roof line changes
o South facade favorable after changed to gable end
o Favorable to move west sign to south facade
o Staff not supporting west facade sign
o Only two signs visible from any point
o Prefer 3 signs; north and south facades critical
• Docket No. 09010003 V needed to allow 2 or 3 signs
Public Hearing closed
Page 2 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
Department Report:
Rachel Boone
• Sign placement was not discussed with original design review of building
• South elevation changed pet ADLS Amendment to allow sign
o Department supports south sign
o Two ground sign faces split for north and south signs
• 97.66 square feet totaU22 square feet over permitted size
o West sign less relevant for visibility
^ All three signs about 71.49 over permitted size
• Not many building with 3 wall signs along Michigan Corridor
Department Recommendation:
Docket No. 09010003 V conditional to support two signs
Support size for north and south signs not facing right-or-way
Discussion:
• Landlord not willing to allow monument sign
o Ground sign on back of property
Motion: Motion made by Madeleine Torres and seconded by James Hawkins:
Docket Nos. 09010003V through 09010005V, Firestone Michigan Rd -Signage be
approved with the condition the signs are on the north and south facade, each at 48.8 square feet
and nothing on the west facade.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4h. Uptown Partners Fence Commitment Amend -TABLED to Apri127, 2009
The applicant seeks the following commitment amendment:
Docket No. 09020004 CA Amend recorded commitment To permit fence design modification
The site is located 531 South Guilford Road and is zoned B7/Commercial
Filed Justin Moffett of Uptown Partners.
5-lOh. Community Health Pavilion -Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 09020006V 25.07.02-09 (b) Number of signs
Docket No. 09020007V 25.07.02-09 (b) Two signs facing East ROW
Docket No. 09020008V 25.07.01-03 Height of Directional Sign
Docket No. 09020010V 25.07.01-03 Square footage of directional sign
Docket No. 09020011V 25.07.02-09 (b) North elevation sign not facing ROW
Docket No. 09020012V 25.07.02-09 (d) Height of ground sign
The site is located at 11911 N. Meridian St. It is zoned B-6/Business, within the US 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Don Miller of A Sign By Design.
Present for Petitioner:
Don Miller, A-Sign-By-Design
Kelly Woodburn, Community Health Pavilion
• Number of signs
Page 3 of t3
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
o Building and west fagade sign visible from Meridian Street
^ Entrance on Pennsylvania '
• Recently constructed two-story building along Pennsylvania blocks view
^ Three sides without signage
^ Current ground sign at second entrance of facility
^ Other entrance has signage for new two-story building
• Two signs facing east right-of--way
o East fagade of building visible for northbound Pennsylvania traffic
^ Entrance signage only for two-story building
^ Because of current ground sign, only one east right-of--way sign permitted
^ Additional signs needed on east elevation for entrance on Pennsylvania
• Height of directional sign
o Sign to indicate Med Check and additional pazking on north side of building
• North elevation sign not facing right-of--way
o Community Health Pavilion and Med Check signage on west elevation
^ Med Check entrance sign will be moved to north elevation
• Height of ground sign
o Currently 6 feet at north location
o Raise to 8 feet to be visible neaz pazked caz area
FAVORABLE:`
Joanne Polivka, 1320 Goldfinch Drive, Clinical Manager, Med-Check
• Some patients cannot find location ,
o New growth azound the building
o Two-story office building in front along Pennsylvania
o Go to wrong building
Kelly Woodburn, Manager, Community Pavilion building
• Lots of calls for location
• Not visible from Pennsylvania
o New wall sign helpful
o Traveling northbound nothing indicated on first entrance signage
Public Hearing closed
Department Report:
Rachel Boone
• Proposed signage excessive
o Proposed 335.29 squaze feet
o Allowed 223 squaze feet
• Directional signage to direct people within the parking lot
o Proposed 12 square feet and 4 feet tall
o Allowed 3 square feet and 3 feet tall
o Could be re-designed without logo and building name
^ Include Med Check, Imaging, Sleep Center
• Support north wall sign
o Beneficial for southbound traffic
o Within size allowed if facing public street
Page 4 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
o Ground sign then visible because people are slowing down after seeing wall sign
o Public makes appointments for many offices within the building
o Ground sign easily visible for northbound traffic as well
• Additional height not necessary
o Many signs along Pennsylvania comply with permitted 6-foot height
o North parking spaces have always been there (NOTE: incorrect statement -north
parking spaces came with construction of new two story building)
• South facade only new permitted directory sign
• West facade sign already has Community Health Pavilion; relocating Med Check sign to north
facade
Department Recommendation:
• Favorable consideration of north. elevation sign not facing right-of--way and the number of signs
• Unfavorable consideration of height of ground sign, height of directional sign, square footage
of directional sign or two signs facing east right-of--way
Discussion:
• Marriott Courtyazd sign 6 feet in height
• North facade has lettering on door and address above doorway
o Directory sign by door at each entrance allowed by Ordinance
• Building to north split total allowable square footage for walls signs; variance for ground sign
' o Split the permitted 80 square feet among the four signs
• Existing 6-foot ground sign on Pennsylvania
• One directional sign on southwest comer indicating north entrance to building
o Two entrances on Pennsylvania; one north, one south
o Directional sign indicates additional parking and north Med Check entrance
^ Can walk through the building or pull azound to north entrance for convenience
• Current signage
0 9aeiiertlr One east, west Med Check coming down, Community Health Pavilion
remaining on west elevation
Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Madeleine Torres:
Docket Nos. 09020006V through 09020008V and 09020010V through 09020012V,
Community Health Pavilion - Signage be approved.
APPROVED: 09020006 V number of signs, 4-0
TIE VOTE: 09020007 V two signs facing East ROW, (Dierckman, Hawkins negative)
DENIED: 09020008 V height of directional sign, 0-4
DENIED: 09020010 V square footage of directional sign, l-3, (Dierckman, Hawkins, Torres
negative)
APPROVED: 09020011 V north elevation sign not facing ROW, 4-0
DENIED: 09020012 V height of ground sign, l-3, (Broach, Hawkins, Torres negative)
' Legal Counsel: John Molitor
• Tie vote can be carried over and heazd next month unless withdrawn or amended by Petitioner
Action: Docket No. 09020007 V for two signs facing east right-of--way will be heazd again Monday,
April 27, 2009 BZA meeting.
Page 5 of 13
Cazmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
llh. 646 Johnson Drive Appeal
The applicant seeks the following permit issuance appeal: '
Docket No. 09020014 Appeal Appeal of Permit No. 09010003 Accessory Structure Size
The site is located at 646 Johnson Drive and is zoned Rl/Single-family residential
Filed by: Howard & Holly Green; John & Beryl Colosimo; James & Laura Dunn; Judy Wagner; and
Michael & Susan Shaw, neighbors.
Present for Petitioner:
Howard and Holly Green, 674 Johnson Drive along with John and Beryl Colosimo, 617 Cazson
Court; James and Laura Dunn, 645 Carson Court; Judy Wagner, 670 Cazson Court; Michael and Susan
Shaw, 706 Johnson Drive.
• Many in audience indicated support of the Appeal
• Lived next door to pazcel since 1973
• Proposed accessory structure 9-car, 1925 square foot gazage
• Project violates Cannel Zoning Ordinance 25.01.O1.A.1
o Accessory buildings and uses shall not alter or change the chazacter of the premises
o Much lazger than other accessory buildings in Johnson Acres or any other residential
neighborhood in Carmel
o Collection of 9 cazs for repairs
o Allow others to use building to repair and service their own cazs
• Violates covenants of Johnson Acres
o No structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any residential
lot other than one detached single family dwelling not to exceed 2.5 stories in height '
and a private gazage for not more than 3 cazs in residential accessory buildings
o Covenants defming document for chazacter of Johnson Acres
^ Written 1976 and have been without violation or compromise
• Photos shown of partially gompleted building
0 25,000 cubic feet; 55 feet long, 35 feet wide, 16 feet high from driveway grade
^ Two feet higher than adjoining lots
o Eyesore; too big
• Mr. Lewis stated February 12 that building was too big
^ Later decided not to spend money to cut back size
o Department Report states it is lazger than any current building and does'not fit the spirit
of the Ordinance or the chazacter of the neighborhood
Use.of building to repair numerous cazs is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
o Accessory buildings and uses shall not alter or change the character of the premises
o Others repair cazs in their own gazages or work on cazs as a hobby, nothing on this scale
o Concern for noise and smell of repairing and storing large number of cars
o Danger involved in storing gasoline, oil and other flammable fluids within 20 feet of his
home
o Stores one or two cazs now without Certificate of Occupancy
o Electrical wiring on ground going into building
Mr. Lewis should have shared plans with neighbors to address their concAms
Mr. Lewis misled neighbors with partial info, hiding intentions '
o Trees removed in spring for open grassy lawn
o Trenches for footers to improve drainage
o Footers poured for single car width gazage with extra space at back for workshop
o Planned before purchased property
Page 6 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
^ Building permit application dated September 25, 2008 •,
' Letter dated Mazch 16, 2009 stated he had the intention to build the garage
before he purchased property in 2008
o Thursday, February 12 after stud walls went up, he indicated building was too big for
the neighborhood and decided to make it smaller
^ Remove 20 feet from reaz of building
^ Would absorb additional cost
^ Asked the Greens to assure neighbors he was cutting back 20 feet
• February 13 work crew carried out plans to reduce building
^ February 16 the 20-foot section was put back
^ Too expensive to make changes
' . $20,000 for new footers and end wall replacement
• They later found out new footers not necessary
o Mike Hollibaugh stated end gable wall was not load-bearing
• Repeated efforts were made to express their concem to the City
o January 18 told building permit was issued
^ No explanation given for permit for lazge-scale building
o Beryl Colosimo and Susan Shaw spoke with Pam Lux regarding project
0 8 complaints made about scale of project
o February 9 emailed Councilman John Accetturo and Pam Lux to express concem
o February 14 Susan Shaw emailed the Mayor and received supportive reply
o Called everyone they could think of to advise them
' o County Council member advised them to attend City Council meeting
Addressed City Council February 16
^ Mayor urged appeal be filed and he would consult with City Attorneys
^ Couple days later Stop Work Order was issued
• Departrnent Report indicates no business intended for structure
o Reasonable to expect Mr. Lewis may buy and sell cars repaired on site
o Five vehicles stored this afternoon; yesterday six
o Clearly planned to be large scale operation
o Activity on scale of commercial repair businesses along Range Line
• This would set terrible precedent for Carmel neighborhoods
• Picture shown of lazge 3-car garage in Johnson Acres
o Blends with existing home
o Part of original structure
o Within limit of 3-caz gazage
• No one wants such a structure next to their property
• Rescind building permit and remove building because it violates Carmel Ordinances and
Johnson Acre Covenants
Discussion:
• About 10 people to make favorable comments to Appeal
• Reminded not to repeat previous information
' • John Molitor: 5 minutes allowed in Rules of Procedure
Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Madeleine Torres:
Rules be waived to increase allotted time to 15 minutes for supporters.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 7 of 13
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
Susan Shaw, 706 Johnson Drive
• Agree with negative impact '
• Several people concerned about selling their homes this spring with this structure
• Property values will be affected
• Should conform with other landscaping in neighborhood
Arnie Esbin, 712 Johnson Drive
• More work has been done on garage after Stop Work Order
Bob Meyer, 773 Johnson Drive, 11 yeaz resident
• Eyesore
• Amount of young children; see potential disaster with cazs in and out
Kim Lykken, 725 Dayton Drive
• Disagreed with Department Report "it may not fit the spirit of the Ordinance or the chazacter of
the neighborhood"
• Chazacter important for maintaining home values and neighborhood desirability
• Common sense outweighs and supersedes the written word
Tim Tosh, 1746 White Ash Drive
• Business owner with 200,000 squaze foot machine shop
• Could be an opportunity for overflow space in his own personal shop in his backyard '
o Could avoid OSHA and EPA requirements
John Colosimo, 617 Cazson Court, adjoining west property
• Reseazch on building private gazage
o Pamphlet with guidelines published by City
• Contact Homeowners Association for other requirements
• Chazacter of neighborhood is single-family houses, small lots, nothing obtrusive, with degree
of privacy
• Photo of house and gazage shown
o Existing out building in other corner for storage
o Mound of dirt from excavation
Audience reminded not to show displays of support or opposition.
Mike Guio, 1633 O'Baza Court for 30 yeazs
• More than one occasion cazs have been stored inside garage
• Gazage with as many square feet as primary residence does not follow spirit of the Ordinance
• , City has copy of covenants
o People are told to look at neighborhood covenants before building -
o Either Building Department did not tell the truth or Mr. Lewis chose to ignore advice
Brad Bowen, 694 Carson Court, adjacent property for 19 years '
• Has taught azchitectural drafting
o Continuity, conformity and flow are needed
o Garage does not meet those standazds
Page 8 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
• Nothing close in neighborhood or other subdivisions in Carmel
' • Feaz and envision everything that comes with caz repair
o Fluids, dirt, smells, noise, flammable materials
Gerry Griffin, 1689 White Ash Drive, 14 years
Does auto repair and restores cars
o Employs company to make sure he is following safety procedure
Potential risks
o Fire Department inspections, OSHA, insurance company, compressor inspections
Tim Griffin, 3428 Eden Way Place
• Gtew up at 1689 White Ash; wife grew up on Carson Court
• Pazents and grandpazents live in neighborhood
• Carmel community has integrity and chazacter with well maintained and established
neighborhoods
• Potential dangers, eyesore, huge, and grossly oversized
• Could sprawl into other areas in city
Paul Ghosh, 618 Johnson Drive, south neighbor
• Overwhelming, neighbors cannot see past it
• Unintended consequences when Mr. Lewis wants to sell house
' • If he wants to sell his house, who would want to buy next to Lewis home
Remonstrators:
Timothy Freeman, Counsel for Mr. Lewis
• Letters from 3 residents supporting building
• Appeal asks for building pemut to be revoked and structure torn down
o Untimely; permit issued January 12, 2009
o Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-919 specifies appeal before this Board must be filed
within time prescribed by this Board
^ Within 30 days
o Appeal filed 42 days after building permit issued, 12 days late
• Appeal is moot and should be denied
Recommendation:
Participant to continue with his facts and remarks with discussion after Public Hearing is closed.
Timothy Freeman continued
e Allegations: Mr. Lewis intends quasi-business/car shop or auto body shop
o Owns only 4 cazs
o Extra cars from ill family members
o No intention to store chemicals or operate business
' o Never stated he intended to store 9 vehicles
• Use issue:
o Building under construction as planned and submitted for building permit
o Stop Work Order - he asked for permission to tarp and store items to prevent waste
o $48,000 spent, with $11,000 after appeal deadline
Page 9 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
o Wait number of days to continue construction
• Mr. Lewis sought building pernut long before it was issued '
o Due diligence before purchase of property
o Approximately 40 unhealthy/infested trees cleared
^ Photos shown: before and after
^ Not cleazed just for footers
^ Clearing of unhealthy foliage for healthy yazd
• Heavily wooded area
• Not visible as eyesore
o Not viewable from all sides
Mr. Ryan Lewis, 646"Johnson Drive
• Loves cars; 4 with 3 licensed, registered, insured and driven
0 2 stored in garage at this time
Plans to fix his own cazs; not a business
• Helps out friends at no charge some times
• 12-foot walls constructed according to plans; limitationl8 feet at top
o He thought it was too big and spoke with Greens
o Proposed to lower walls two feet
o Proposed to bring in back wall
^ Told he would need to cut concrete and install new footer
^ Leaving slab in back with no purpose
• After speaking with contractor, it was out of his budget ,
^ Did not know additional footer not needed
• Purchased as empty home
o Yazd and trees overgrown
o Improved cosmetically inside and out
• He knows not to make noise late at night
• Not a body shop mechanic
• Electrical wire in gazage hooked to sump pump
• Friends and girl friend have cars when they visit
o His four vehicles will be kept inside ,
• According to Carmel Ordinances, gazage could be bigger
• No chemicals other than gasoline for lawn mower
• Vinyl siding for three sides
• Trees will be planted azound structure
• His problem as to who would buy his home in the future
Timothy Freeman
• Exhibits given to Boazd
o Budget and expenditures
Complete waste to take down garage
o Expenditures approaching $48,000 '
o Teazing down is unknown number; could exceed $25,000
Permit issued with full knowledge of size and scope of project
o Location, survey reports, dimensions, elevations
o Back and forth to make sure proposed structure within existing rules
Page 10 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 23, 2009
• Could end with approximately $75,000 waste and economic expenditure for Mr. Lewis
t • Picture of desired result; match current house to look like it has always existed
Rebuttal:
Howard Green
• Camouflaging with bushes and trees
o How do you hide 25,000 cubic feet
o Suggestion it has to be hidden is admission of undesirable and unworthy
o Compazed appearance of proposed project with actual project
• Difference in representation and scale of project
Filed Appeal too late
o Took time to fmd out recourse
o Filed immediately once informed of process
o February 16 Mayor suggested Appeal
• Even after 30 days; two possible basis of appeal of the limit
• Mr. Lewis did not come to them until February 12, end of 30 days
^ February 9 email to Pam Lux asking what they could do
• A Code Enforcement Officer inspected project
^ No one ever indicated they could appeal
• Financial hardship questionable
o Cost of $20,000 indicated on building permit
o Attorney said $48,000
T~ o Contractor said $75,000 on February 12
• Homes represent life-time sweat and cash equity; could mean financial hazdships for retired
neighbors
• Mr. Lewis young and time to recover from impact on net worth
• Bug infestation and yazd
o Mr. Green sprayed his trees and bugs left
o Cut, bug-infested wood stacked against Ghosh's fence
• Nine cazs mentioned January 27 by Mr. Lewis to Mr. and Mrs. Green
o Mrs. Colosimo complained to the City about 12-car gazage
^ Pam Lux said only 9-caz garage
Public Hearing closed.
Department Report: '
Christine Barton-Holmes
• Building permit issued January 12; construction began
• Appeal filed
o Permit reviewed when submitted
^ Includes construction details, elevations, site plan _
o Permit reviewed after complaints received by City
^ In compliance with Zoning Ordinance
' Chapter 25 provides for lot coverage, setback and height for accessory structures
• Not permitted to exceed square footage of primary structure
• Cannot be taller than 18 feet measured halfway up to the gable
• Setbacks depend on proximity to primary structure
Page I I of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
o Set back 25 feet from primary structure or front building line
0 10 feet or closer to primary structure then share primary '
structure's setback requirements
^ R-1 is 10-foot side Yazd setback
o If set farther back, reduced setback requirements
• Either size of primary structure or size of lot usually regulate size of
accessory structure, making it cleazly subordinate to the primary
structure
• Size of primary structure and size of lot permitted accessory structure of
this size
o Usually agricultural buildings set on lazger lots are this size
• Department found structure was permitted under Zoning Ordinance
• Homeowners Association covenants
o Restrict potential size of accessory structure
o Grant right of enforcement to Carmel Planning Department
^ Carmel Plan Commission will review and vote in April
^ Enforcement of covenants is typically a civil matter bandied by the Courts, not
the City
• Overall project
o Subjective measurement even when a project meets the Zoning Ordinance
o Garage is compliant with the Ordinance
Department Recommendation:
• Property owner and neighbors seek compromise
o Possibly smaller structure
• Petitioner's Findings of Fact for Appeal are appropriate
• If Appeal denied, Department would prepare Findings
Discussion:
• BZA's jurisdiction limited to issues respecting interpretation of Zoning Ordinance
o Under State law does not have power to enforce private covenants and restrictions
• Generally civil matters between homeowners within a subdivision
• Plan Commission under State law does have power to enforce Covenants thataze made in
connection with the approval of a subdivision by Plan Commission
• These Covenants have peculiaz provision to give power to Planning Department
o No provision in State Statue or Subdivision Control Ordinance enabling the Planning
Department to enforce Covenants
• Staff issuing building permits not obligated or responsible to check Covenants and Restrictions
before issuing permits
o Staff must check State issued regulations and Carmel Zoning Ordinance
• Mr. Lewis owned property little over one yeaz
o Not familiar with Covenants
• Mr. Lewis has owned four registered cars '
o Longest 1998, newest summer 2008
• Electrical service basic/standard110
0 110 standard per City Code
Mike Hollibaugb, Director of Community Services
Page 12 of 13
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 23, 2009
f.
C
Clarified footers
o Initially discussed with Building Staff about moving wall
o Jim Blanchard, Building Commissioner, manages Code Enforcement
^ Observed gable end of building was not load-bearing
^ Most load-bearing on north and south footers
o Wall could be moved without initial estimated cost
Result:
• Board felt building altered chazacter of neighborhood
• Homeowners Association and neighbors should have been contacted
• Mr. Lewis has no other plans at this time
• Table for 30 days for compromise
• Plan Commission has authority to consider whether to enforce Covenants and Restrictions
o Not a mandatory responsibility
o At discretion of Plan Commission to initiate litigation through the Court system
• Hopefully compromise worked out
• Two BZA members also members of Plan Commission
o Leo Dierckman and Madeleine Tones Plan Commission members
o Executive Committee recommended petition be heazd at public meeting
• Table for 30 days for Plan Commission decision; then BZA action on the Appeal
o Would be discussed at Public Hearing of Plan Commission
Motion: On a motion made by Kent Broach and seconded by Leo Dierckman
Docket No. 09020014 Appeal be tabled to next BZA meeting, Apri127, 2009.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Result: Item will be heazd at the next Plan Commission meeting, Tuesday, Apri121, 2009, 6:00 PM in
the Council Chambers.
Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Madeleine Tones: '
Executive Session scheduled to Follow this meeting be canceled.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
i;
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Approved this ~'7 day of ~~~ '' 20~
%' ~~//~
Pr ident -James R. Hawkins
~,
~~
Secretary -Connie Tinghy
S:~Board of Zoning Appeals4~finu[esslBoazd of Zoning Appeals - 200820090323.Rf
Page 13 of 13