No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-24-99CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 24, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; James Quinn; Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf; and Tom Yedlick. Mark Monroe was present representing the Department of Community Services. The minutes of the April meeting were approved as submitted. John Molitor reported that Senate Bill 662 contains provisions establishing a new land resources council for the State of Indiana. The council would be a 10 member board within the lieutenant governor's office and would have the responsibility to look into issues such as farm land preservation, local land use controls, etc. and to also aid local government with model ordinances. Also, House Bill 1606 was passed and made some minor changes with regard to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Bill allows local units of government in a township such as Carmel to create a separate BZA for the township and allow the appointing authorities to be named in the ordinance for the members of the Township Board of Zoning Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld a decision that denied a developer to make use of its property to prevent further endangerment of an endangered species, a butterfly, that was thought to live on or near the land to be developed. Chuck Weinkauf reported that item lg., possible amendment to the Rules of Procedure, will be discussed as the last item of business this evening. Mark Monroe reported that items 1 h. and 2h. regarding the Ameritech Telecommunications Tower continue to be tabled. The Department has not been provided with any additional information since the meeting of February. Chuck Weinkauf read a letter from the petitioner, Ameritech Telecommunications Tower, requesting that items lh. and 2h. be tabled and that public notice be waived for the July meeting. 3h. Carmel Convenience Center (V- 17 -99) 4h. Carmel Convenience Center (V- 18 -99) 5h. Carmel Convenience Center (V- 19 -99) s:\minutes \bza \bzal999may 1 There was discussion on the petitioner's request to Table and to waive public notice for the July meeting. Tom Yedlick asked for clarification of the tabling circumstances between Ameritech and Carmel Convenience Center and the guidelines for a re- submittal. Earlene Plavchak moved to approve the petitioner's request to waive the re- notification requirement prior to the July meeting. Mark Monroe referred to the Rules of Procedure which allow minor amendments as well as minor oral amendments. Mark stated that the Department could advise the petitioner that the re- submittal must be submitted in its entirety in the appropriate time frame before another placement is given on the agenda. The vote on Earlene Plavchak's motion for approval to waive the petitioner's request for renoticing the public hearing in July was DENIED 0 in favor, 5 opposed. 6h. Warner Variance (V- 27 -99) Petitioner seeks a development standards variance of Section 5.3.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow a proposed swimming pool to encroach into a 20 foot easement by 6 feet and within the minimum 20 foot rear yard setback by 6 feet. The site is located at 11159 Woodbury Drive within the Kingswood Subdivision. The site is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Marge Mikles of Pools of Fun. Bruce Holmes, 1434 Keystone Way, Carmel appeared before the Board representing Marge Mikles. The petitioner has proposed a setback of 20 feet from 14 feet. American Aggregates has installed a permanent fence an additional 10 feet off the property line. The homeowner has a deck built onto the rear of his home; if the pool can be shifted outward, the necessity of moving the deck will be eliminated. The pool will not affect the drainage swale and the pool is in direct line with a neighbor's pool. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval. However, there is a separate issue with the City Engineer's office regarding the encroachment into the easement. Jim Quinn asked about the drainage issue. The petitioner stated that the elevation of the swale will not be changed. There is a small retaining wall on the back side of the concrete and the swale will be not change. Also, the use of the surrounding properties will not be affected in an adverse manner. The elevation will be exactly the same as it was prior to the installation of the pool. Tim Warner, the homeowner, stated that the only utility in the swale is the cable; all other utilities are at the front of the property. s:\minutes \bza \bzal999may 2 Mark Monroe reported that the easement is still an issue with the City Engineer's office separate from the zoning issue. Usually, swimming pool projects do not impact site drainage or neighborhood drainage patterns. In this particular case, the pool is actually outside of the swale, and much of the drainage runs to the street. There is still the issue of the Engineer's office with the easement. The Engineer's office would not be guided by the BZA's decision. John Molitor stated that the Board cannot remove the drainage easement. If there is a drainage problem that results from the swimming pool, it may have to be corrected by the landowner regardless of any approval or variance. The BZA can only give the petitioner the right to make the land use. Note: Pat Rice recused herself from voting on Docket No. V- 27 -99. Jim Quinn moved to approve V- 27 -99, Warner Variance. APPROVED 4 -0. 7h. Sangiorgio Variance (V- 28 -99) Petitioner seeks a developmental standards variance of Section 5.4.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing home to encroach into the minimum front yard setback by 3 feet on one frontage and by 8 feet on the other frontage. The site is located at 5267 Apache Moon within the Delaware Trace Subdivision. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Roger Kessler. Roger Kessler, attorney, appeared before the Board representing the petitioner. The subject property is a corner lot within the Delaware Trace Subdivision consisting of approximately one -half acre. The requested variance is not noticeable, since it is a corner lot and of substantial size. The issue was not recognized until a mortgage survey was done and presented at closing to Mr. Sangiorgio. The neighbors who are contiguous to the Sangiorgio property submitted a petition saying that they are in support of the granting of the variance. There is no hardship on the value of the homes in the surrounding area. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed variance; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. There was discussion as to how the error occurred whether it was calculated or truly an honest error. Mr. Quinn defended the rules and regulations of home construction and felt that if this was allowed to continue, there should be consequences for these mistakes. Mr. Kessler stated that the home had undergone several inspections s:\minutes \bza \bzal999may 3 Mr. Sangiorgio commented that he had no problem with a fine being imposed by he Board on the excavator or builder, or whoever is responsible. Mr. Sangiorgio appealed to the Board to settle this case There was discussion among Board Members pertaining to a monetary donation to a charity; the petitioner felt that this amounted to extortion. There was further discussion of the situation. Mark Monroe asked the types of mitigation that Mr. Quinn would consider. Mr. Quionn's response was that greenspace, landscaping, park board, the Legacy Fund, any number of organizations whereby the community would benefit and the point could be made at the same time that the Board is holding its nose and approving at the same time. John Molitor opined that without a mitigation plan, it would perhaps make more sense to table the matter for 30 days and return to the Board to work with staff. The petitioner would then return to the BZA with a program that could be adopted. The petitioner was willing to consider a fine, however if any donation (or fine) proposed is low enough, the builder /developer would continue to encroach. The petitioner then asked for a tabling of Docket No. V -28 -99 to the June meeting, re- noticing not required. APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed, Pat Rice recused. lh. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure. Article VII, Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure state that the BZA, at its own discretion, may continue or postpone the hearing of any application upon the affirmation vote of a majority of the members present. Such a continuance or postponement will not be considered a tabling caused by the petitioner. There are other associated sections. The current rules allow the Board to table an item when the petitioner does not appear; the BZA has the ability at the next meeting to dismiss the item for lack of prosecution. There is some language in the Rules that address "no shows." In regard to the Ameritech Tower, the petitioner is pursuing a site for a tower on public property located at the current water treatment plant, 126 Street and Hazeldell Road. It would be part of Ameritech's proposal to re- construct the existing tower to add their tower to a new one in its place. Pending the BPW's review, the request may appear on the June agenda. Mark Monroe introduced Kelly Hahn, the DOCS intern for the summer, from Ball State University. Kelly is student of Urban Planning and will be a senior next year. There was open, general discussion regarding voting protocol and comments made by Board members before a vote is taken. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. s:\minutes \bza \bzal999may 4 Ramona Hancock, Secretary Charles W. Weinkauf, President s:\minutes \bza \bzal999may 5