HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-24-04OF x
4- 4��' City of Carmel
��o N
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
Monday, May 24, 2004
Minutes
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Ca Board of Zorn ng Appeals net at 7:00 M on Monday,
May 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cannel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were Leo Dierckman; Jinn Hawkins; Earlene I lavchak; Madeleine Torres; Chuck
weinkauf, thereby establishing a quorum.
The Department of Community Services was represented by Angie Butler, John Molitor, Legal Counsel
was also in attendance.
The minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted.
John Molitor reported that a request had been received from Philip Thrasher who represents several
opponents of the Special Use petition filed by Martin Maxietta Materials. The request is not to hear this
itern this evening, and it has not been included in the Agenda. The Department will Docket the Special
Use petition for sand and gravel operation on the Mueller south property by Martin Marietta for the
regular meeting in June. At that time, the Board may want to set a date for a special meeting if need be.
H Public Hearin
1-4h. Carmel Hope Fellowship Church Special Use
The applicant seeks special use approval for a church.
Docket N. 04030014 SU Ch.7.2.A special uses
The applicant also seeks the following development standards variances:
Docket No. 04040025 V Chapter 7.04.03.A front yard setback
Docket No. 04040029 V Chapter 26.02.08 side yard for church
Docket N. 04040030 V Chapter 7.4.3.F lot coverage
The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th Street and Carey Road.
The site 'i's zoned lesienc.
Filed by Don Hawley of Carmel Hope Fellowship.
Don Hawley of Cannel Hope Fellowship, 14535 Carey Road, Cannel appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineers, 10505 North College Avenue was also
present.
Carmel Advisory Beard of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 2 of 1
The property located at the southeast corner of 14e Street and Carey road is owned by the Indiana
Association of Seventh Darr Adventists who are desirous of establishing a. church on this property.
The church would be constructed in three phases: remodel of the existing house to include a chapel and
parking for the building. phase II consists of the completion of the entire parking lot the petitioner is
asking for an 1 ruonth time frame.) If desired by the neighbor to the south of the property who was
concerned about privacy, the petitioner is willing to erect a privacy fence after the completion of the
parking lot. Phase I11 is final design and building of the new hur h structure.
In addition to the Special Use, the petitioner seeks relief from the variances listed. A reduction in the front
yard setback is being requested on both 146 Street and Carey load, due to the increased dedication of
right-of-way requested by Hamilton County. The church could not be built on this property without this
variance. The setbacks from the new right- of-way are 35 feet; the petitioner is requesting a -foot setback
on the north side, and a 3 -foot setback on the vest side (Carey Road.) A reduction of setback along the
east side oft the proposed parking lot is also requested. This area adjoins a conunon area and a retention
pond in Taylor Trace; this variance is needed to provide the required number of parking spaces for a
facility Wi h the 200 persona seating capacity. A variance for lot coverage is also being requested in order
to acconnnodate the building and parking lot. For this purpose, the services of Weihe Engineers to
research and prepare the accessary documents and plans to accomplish this project, including the use of
the Taylor Trace retention pond for storm water runoff. There will be some night modifications to the
south berm.
The petitioner has been in contact with the developers of Taylor Trace and they have no objections to the
shared use of the retention pond. W. Fawley submitted a letter from Marvin Taylor, president of
Sp ngrn l Builders, developer of Taylor Trace. Mr. Taylor i's a current resident of Taylor Trace and
supports the church project.
Drawings of the proposed renovation for the existing house were displayed on the overhead. The house
will be incorporated into the new church building when it is completed; the gage will be retained as a
youth chapel.
The resident to the south, Tony Trent, has expressed concern regarding privacy. The petitioner has agreed
to install a privacy fence at the time the parking lot is completed.
Mr. Fawley was not able to show samples of the brick at this times -their would be available in two days.
However, Mr. Hawley did display are Owens Corning oakridge shingles that will be used —a 40-year
architectural shingle, in a quarry gray colon
Members of the public were invited to spew in favor of the petitions; the f llowifxg appeared.
Marry Wade, 3309 East 146 'Street, imm ediately to the east of the site, expressed support for the church.
Mrs. Wade did express concern regarding privacy, and would like a privacy fence or some type of buffer
between her property and the church site.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to any or all of these petitions; the following
appeared:
Tony Trent, 1 5 Carey load, agreed with Mr. Hawley" s comments regarding churches ---hey are
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 3 of 1
important i n society. W. Trent expressed some concern with the use of the property—the size of the
property versus the proposed use. of the total site will be covered with impenio s product and that
is a concern. Also, greenspace is concern as well as the fact that four variances need to be utilized to
acconnnodate the property. The proposed facility may also have a negative, economic effect on Mr.
Trent's property. There is also a concern with lighting on the Church site that may shine into his property.
Firmly, who protects Nk. Trent's property if variances are continually needed to use property? Mr.
Trent's property is not in a subdivision—who protects his property?
Jeanne Bebee, 3405 East 146 Street, echoed those concerns expressed by fir. Trent regarding not being
represented by any homeowners association. Mr. Trent's property, Ms. Bebee's property, and James
Traynor` s property to the eat are all alone, not part of a subdivision, and they must rely upon the Board to
represent them in a fair and equitable manner. This is just another instance of the purchase of a piece of
property in Carmel with the assumption that a use variance would be automatically granted. Ms. Bebee
respectfully requested that this petition be denied and that this parcel would be maintained as residential
area of single family dwelling homes,
Rebuttal, Mr. Hawley. Regarding the concerns expressed by Mrs. wade and her request for privacy, the
petitioner has meet with Mrs. wade, the drawings have been modified and the petitioner assured the
Board and Mrs. wade that a buffer for maximum privacy will be established. Also, the coverage of the lot
is at 39% of the site, the maximum um is 35 therefore, the petitioner is seeing a variance for the The
lot is too large for one residence and too small to be anything real large. Therefore, the petitioner is
requesting a 200 seat Church facility only and that would be forever controlled by the size of the lot and
the parking, etc. Regarding the other residents' concerns that the site remain single family residential,
with the value of the property, it is not practical that someone would pay over $200,000 to purchase
1400 square -foot home. 1 Hawley suggested that if the Special Use is not granted, other applicants
would likely request something life a Village Pantry, etc., that does not fit with the neighborhood.
Department Comments, Angie Butler. The Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed this proposal
Mice and the petitioner has satisfied all of their requests. The petitioner has also satisfied the requests of
the Urban Forester to provide the buffer yard requirements. The Department recommends positive
consideration with the following conditions: 1 The applicant will install sidewalks or a path along Carey
Road. The applicant is to dedicate right-of-way pursuant to approval of the County Highway and the
City of Cannel.
Leo I ierckrnan questioned only 52 parking spaces for a 200 -scat church facility.
Mr. Hawley responded the 52 parking spaces allow one vehicle per 4 seats. It is possible that 2 of the
parking spaces may be lost because of the trees. The petitioner is working with the Urban Forester to save
the maximum number oftrees.
The public hearing was then closed on the Carmel Hope Fellowship Church Special Use.
Leo l ierck an moved for approval of the Cannel Hope Fellowship Church, seconded by Madeleine
Torres,
The recommendations of the Department were not included in the motion. Therefore, ibis. Torres
withdrew her second, fir. Dierckman withdrew his motion.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 4 of 1
Leo I ierckman then made forr al motion to approve Docket loo. 04030014 SU, Carmel Hope
Fellowship Church, Special Use, conditioned upon the follovfirrg: a Installation of a sidewalk or path
along Carey Road; b Dedication of fight-of-way pursuant to Hamilton County Highway and/or the City
of Carmel; and a Amending the plans to meet the minimum buffer yard planting requirements; seconded
by Jim Hawkins and APPROVED 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Leo ierckrrran.
arlene Plavehak moved for approval of Docket Nos. 04040028V and 04040029 V, front yard setback
and side yard for church., seconded by Jinn Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 04040030 v, lot coverage, seconded by Jim Hawkins
and APPROVED 5
h. Cherry Creek Estates, Sec 1B, CA .Amenity Area- Special Use
The applicant seeps special use approval for an amenity area,
Docket N. 04040003 SU Chapter 5.02 special uses
The site is located at southeast corner Hazel Dell Pkwy and Cherry Tree R.
The site is zoned S -1 Residence- Low Density.
Piled by Bill Bryant of Stepelerth Associates, Inc.
Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties appeared before the Board representing the applicant, developer of
Cherry Creek Estates. During the original Matting process of Cherry Creek Estates, are amenity area
was to be included with a pool, bathhouse, playground, basketball and tennis courts, walking trails and
adequate parking.
The applicant has been through TAC Committee review and their comments have been addressed. The
pool follows the requirements of the City of Carmel, lifeguards will be provided and the area in its
entirety will be owned and managed by the homeowners association that has already been established.
The Cherry Creek Estates community is approximately 10% completed and has 50 homes under
construction out of approximately 275. The tennis courts and basketball court will not be lighted for
might use.
Members of the public were invited to speak M" favor of or opposition to this petition; no one appeared
and the public hearing was closed.
Department Cornnnents, Angle Butler. As of May 21' the Department received a letter from Bill
Brun of S eppelwertii the requirements of the pool size have been fulfilled and a commitment i
being made regarding the lifeguards.
When questioned, Paul Rioux said the main pool has a surface area of 2,000 square feet, plus a kiddie
pool.
Chuck weinkauf was hoping the dimensions would be 75 feet X a mim*murn of 2 feet.
Mr. Riou explained that the pool is "V' shaped, 45 feet X 54 feet, the outside dimension, and 35 feet
X 24 feet at the "L
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 5 of 1
Chuck weinkauf commented that a great number of subdivisions built in the 1970's included pools
that are 75 feet in length 25 yards--and i a swimming size for competitive swimming, and
minimum of 32 feet vide that provides four lanes for competition. Carmel High School has a
tremendous swimming program and the foundation for that prograrn has been neighborhood pools
associated with neighborhood swixn turns.
Mr. Rioux said the pool was obviously not designed as a competitive swimming pool dimensions and
depths have a lot to do with that. Most of the families are interested in the "L" shape with stairs and
lot of shallow areas for the children. The kiddie pool is only 18 inches deep. This community consists
of approximately 273 homes and over 100 of th m are empty- nester ranches. The pool is modest by
the standpoint of the size of the community. This will be the fourth pool Platinum properties has built
in a con riu ity such as this and it seems to be very popular and has a lot of deck space and a lot of
family activity as opposed to a competitive pool.
Madeleine Torres commented that just because there are not families in the empty nesters does not
mean that there are not people who want to do lap swimming. Perhaps the layout could be changed
slightly to accommodate a 75 X 32 -foot, pool.
Mr. Rioux explained that he was actually representing Pulte, the builder of this con nunity, and this is
the third neighborhood in a row that has requested a pool of this size` --the other to were approved.
arlene Plavchak commented that the pool size is great for the small babies; the 4-6 year olds like to
be at the shallow end of the steps. when the kids get olden, if the pool is not big enough to
ac onunodate therm, they will not want to "hang out" there. The pool should be a congregation place
for the children and if it is just a glorified wading pool, the older kids will not go there and it defeats
the purpose of having a pool.
Leo Dierck man moved for approval of Docket No. 04040003 SU, Cherry Creek Estates, Section I
CA 3 Amenity Area, Special use, seconded by Earlene Plavchak, APPROVED 4 in favor, one
opposed weinkauf.
h. Carmel Science and Technology Park, BIk 11, lot Companion Animal Hospital
The applicant seeps use variance approval for a veterinary hospital.
Docket loo. 04040018 UV Chapter 20D.01 permitted uses
The site 'is located just southwest of the intersection of Cannel Dr and Guilford. Ave.
The site is zoned M-3/Manufacturing Park District.
Filed by Hark Monroe of Drewry, Sinnnons, Pitts Vomehm for REI Investments.
Mark Monroe, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing appeared before the Board representing Dr. Anthony
T e ti, owner of Companion Animal Hospital, and 1EI Investments, owner of block I 1 in the Carmel
Science and Technology Park. D r. Bietti was in attendance as well as Sean Curran, Curran Architects
the project architect.
The site 'i's located southwest of the intersection of Carmel give and Guilford Avenue ithin the
Carmel Science and 'technology Park. The entire site comprises approximately acres, excluding the
pond; the facility will he situated on approximately 3 acres. Lenox 'Trace Condominiums is located to
the south of the site; to the east is Carmel Corporate Center. Lakeside Corporate Center Offices is to
Cannel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 6 of l
the northeast, to the north is Midwest ISO, and to the west is the One Call Communications, all located
within the M-3 Zoning District as well as the three acre site proposed for the animal facility.
The site plan has been designed in accordance with the M-3 Manufacturing District requirements. The
facility will contain a 13,000 square foot office building that will house Dr. Bizetti's veterinarian
medicine practice and will include parl xng located to the north and west of the building. The site also
includes an extensive landscape plan containing 134 trees and 166 shrubs. There is a fenced area
behind the building to the south —this area is intended for medical observation of nimal only. The
fence is an -foot cedar fence on the south as well as an -foot stone and wrought -iron fence to the east
and west.
Proposed commitments have been filed With the BZA attorney and the Department of Comm mty
Services. Those commitments have been reviewed and approved by DOGS. In summary, those
commitments ents state that the fenced area will only be used for medical observation of animals and not be
used for `dog runs or animal guns." Any animal within the medical observation area will be on a leash
and accornpam'ed by one of Dr. Bi etti's employees; no more than 5 animals at any one time will be in
the medical observation area. Regarding noise impact, frrther conunitments. provide that any dog
within the observation that may bark would be soft muzzled and there would be no noise impact to any
adjacent property owner. The veterinarian facility would only board animals for medical observation
poses —the facility is not meant to be a commercial kennel in a traditional sense and will only be
used for overnight stays for animals that need medical observation. Those commitments are a part of
the record this evening.
The lighting plan indicates no list spillage beyond the fenced area to the south. Any light that would
emit specifically from the parking lot lighting would transmit no farther than the fence. The fence is
located 65 feet frorn the Lenox Trace property line and the building is situated 140 feet from the
property ine.
The building elevations were reviewed. The north and east elevations provide for an extensive design
of cut stone, cedar shake, and green- tinted glass at the entry and other windows along the front and
sides. The rear and west design of the building includes more of the cut stone and cedar shake. A
masonry wall design has also been included on the rear.
Dr. Garry Sampson, an expert in animal behavior with over 40 years experience, has prepared a letter of
findings; Dr. Bi etti summarized fir. Sampson's findings as follows,
Dr. Tony Bi etti, 180 East Cannel Drive, Cannel, owner of Companion Animal Hospital, addressed
the Bawd and suininan ed the concerns of odor and noise control from neighbors in the adjacent area.
The issue of odor control is handled by twice a day policing of the area for any animal waste in order
to maintain the highest order of cleanliness that is vital to the care of the animals. Regarding noise, Dr.
Swnpson mentions three reasons that clogs will bark. One is an effort to communicate with family
members; two is line of sight of an animal outside the containment area; third is identification and
protection of home territory. The dogs are removed from family members; the fencing plus
landscaping plus buffer alleviates clogs in line -o- sight —dogs would be outside the containment area;
and dogs would not be in their hone territory and therefore would not barb to protect home territory.
C armel Advisory Board of zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 7 of 1
Dr. �ett� summarized saying n that the concerns of noise pollution are valid in any neighborhood
order to establish good relationship with the neighborhood, the noise and odor must
be s it uat ion and g managed appr Dr. Sampson feels that the policies and design o the facility through
fencing and land g
in will help negate those issues. In a situation where there is a neurotic barker,
the animal will be soft-muzzled.
sta that the issues raised b members the Technical Advisory Committee .a
Mark Monroe sta
been addressed.
public were invited t speak in favor of this petition; no one appeared. Members f
Members of the p
the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following appeared:
Roberta
Ross attomey representing Lenox Trace Condominiums presented a petition with 12
signatures 1n opposition oition to this r The residents of Lenox Free has 160 homes, generally elder
this locations specifically awa from the hub -�bub and noise f busy city; nearby is a
persons chase p y
retention pond
used for recreational ose fishing and walking. The residents are concerned that
this prop facility would introduce into their environmcnt exactly what they chose to move away
from. Acro from L enox Trace is a new condominium that will be constructed and marketed at
250,000 p ublic notice was not received by the new condominium owner notice would have gone
sold the and and he would not have had concerns of a potential owner. This will
to the owner who
largest veterinarian clinic in the State of Indiana and will have inside kennels. In order to
be the
accommodate 6 animals in recovery, there must be additional funds available. Once a structure is
built th at accommodates 60 animals, and they are kept overnight, who will police whether they are
kenneled ovemi t or i the are there f or medical observation? The timeliness of removal of
being ke y ti
animal waste is different that was rep resented to the homeowners of Lenox Trace. Additionally, the
b ottom row along the back of the f is windows f or dogs to look out. If the anim are injured or
recove from operational procedures, they d o not need this ki nd of lookout. If, however, the dogs
e being boarded and will sit by the hour, like doggie care, the dogs will be bored and want to
out somethi to amuse itself. There s reason 1 I- District does not allow veterinary. ll s.
loo g
Ross read the definition of the M-3 district and the exclusion of permitted uses, including a veterinary
cl inic `thout approval of the BZA. Ms. Doss stated that no one could predict, with any reasonable
c ertainty g
ertaint what an do will do under any circumstance. Where is no representation why the lamest
veterinarian facility in the State must be in this particular location, backing up to these residences. It i
like p l that the clinic hours of operations will he expanded at some future date. Ms. Ross asked the
Boar to consider that the expert, Dr. Sampson, who rendered his opinion regarding the behavior of the
do g s not only used to work for Companion Animal Hospital in Indianapolis, but has never been a
regular g
tre tin physician. Dr. Sampson taught at the University of Minnesota and worked for Eli Lily
Co. for y ears with animals in laboratories in boxes an not someone who has day -to -day
ep
enence with animals at vet clinics. The residents of Lenox Trace request that this petition
denied.
S yl v ia Peters resident of Lenox Trace and president of the Lenox Trace HA, had some serious
concerns. if these animals are all sick, and 60 per day—what about hazard waste disposal, and will
there be a night veterinarian on the remise? Sick dogs, 5 at a time out on leashes -gill they be
contag or commulucable t o one another? Muzzle a sick dog that is only there b ecause he *s sick?
Does this really sound life a medical clinic or is this another terra for boarding animals? Ms. Peters
asked the Board to deny this petition.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 8 of 12
Kevin Quinlan, 11760 Glenbrook Court, Lenox Trace, has been in residence at Lenox Trace for 11
years. Mr. Quinlan said he and the other residents who signed the petition against the facility are
concerned with noise, smell, waste, and disease that will accompany 60 dogs a day to the site. There
are other business in this area that do not alter the character or value of the neighborhood; this proposal
will have a severe, adverse effect not only on Lenox Trace but the three, proposed up -scale projects
planned for the immediate Guilford area. Mr. Quinlan said he had spoken to another veterinarian who
stated "overnight medical observation" is a term animal hospitals use to skirt zoning laws. Companion
currently boards dogs and will continue to do so, only under a new definition. Lenox Trace By -Laws
allow for pets, but there is a strict limit on size, number and noise. The wrought -iron fence will not
block line -of -sight and the Lenox Trace pool is directly behind. The intersection of Carmel Drive and
Guilford will have walkers and joggers, foot traffic from the adjacent office buildings that will also
trigger the barking. Mr. Quinlan asked the Board to deny this petition.
Sally Vogel, 11755 Beckham Court, Lenox Trace, has lived there for 11 years, said the area wildlife
and beauty will disappear if the animal hospital is allowed. The residents will be left with ill,
vomiting, sometimes dying, whining, howling, urinating, continuously barking dogs that will cover a
portion of the grassy knolls of Carmel Technology Park with excrement consisting of worms and
parasites. This site is not appropriate for this particular facility!
Florian Walter, Lenox Trace resident, stated the proposed facility does not conform to the current
zoning and is not a permitted use. 35 to 60 barking dogs on the property line would be an unwelcome
noise—no one can guarantee that the dogs would not bark, and Mr. Walter is opposed. Mr. Walter
asked that the Board deny this petition.
Reisa Utterback, 11755 Beckham Court, 9205 Lenox Trace, said her balcony would look directly into
this facility /fenced -in area. Please consider the second stories of Lenox Trace and deny this petition.
Rebuttal: Mark Monroe presented a photograph of the view from the site south towards Lenox Trace
taken last weekend. This view would not be altered in any way —the trees would be left as is, and in
addition, an 8 -foot cedar fence and another row of trees would be installed. An aerial photograph was
shown displaying the surrounding area and the Carmel Science and Technology Park. The Park is
zoned M -3 Manufacturing and permits by right light manufacturing uses, retail uses, storage and
warehouse uses, as well as professional office uses. Those uses have been allowed since 1982 when
the property was rezoned to M -3. Lenox Trace is zoned B -5 /commercial. When Lenox Trace was
constructed at this location, they were made aware of the M- 3/Manufacturing zone that existed next
door. In reality, today, there could be a small factory placed on this 3 -acre site or even the remaining 5
acres. The proposed use is low impact when compared to a factory, warehouse, or retail, and within
the M -3 zone, professional office uses are allowed. In this case, Dr. Bizetti is a member of a
recognized profession and licensed by the State as a veterinarian. Through a technicality in the Carmel
Ordinances, his profession is not listed in the professional office use. Otherwise, anywhere else, Dr.
Bizetti's profession is recognized and would be permitted in a district that would allow professional
office use.
The outdoor use of the medical observation area is only used and committed to as a medical
observation area and no more than 5 leashed animals will be in the area at any one time. Expert
testimony from Dr. Sampson states the animals will not bark in the situation outside the medical
observation area. As a precaution, if they do bark, an employee will place a soft muzzle on them. Dr.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 9 of 12
Bi etti has been operating for the past 13 years a t 180 East Cannel Drive within the Hunters Run
Shopping Center, and over that period of tine, Dr. Bi etti has had no complaints regarding barking or
any nuisance factors related to animals. Mr. Monroe offered a letter from Fineberg Assoc., Dr.
Bizetti's current landlord, who said they had not received any complaints in the last 10 years regarding
barking dogs or other noises being heard outside the building, Other busines s owners adjacent to Dr.
Bietti's current facility have stated that the facility has not caused any noise nuisance and they are in
support of Dr. Bizetti's current location.
The spacing for landscaping and suitable fencing as well as a duality designed office building will
definitely raise the architectural standards within the Cannel Science Technology Park.
Department Comments, Angie Butler. Provided the applicant can present a site layout addressing any
negative impacts associated with the outdoor area, the Department is recommending positive
consideration of this Docket.
Leo Dierekrnan asked Mark Monroe to go over the commitments again. Mr. Monroe did so, and also
provided copies to the Board.
Leo Dierckman was c nccrned that the commitments tendered are not enforceable; there is not enough
staff to police and enforce.
Other comments and discussion from the Board included the noise factor, the medical observation
boarding kennel, and the surrounding area. There are several businesses /offices that were courted to
locate in this area. The proposed use brings a lot of concerns and 60 dogs is a situation that really
needs some se ous consideration as well as the need to try to enforce the commitments ents submitted.
Mike Hollibaugh addressed the Board stating that the commitments are enforceable. The Department
has the ability to enforce the commitments and has legal support in the way of fines, etc. and can be
effective in policing and enforcing.
Roberta Kass expressed concern that there was a misrepresentation by the petitioner. The current
Companion Animal Hospital landlord went to extraordinary, expensive measures to insulate against
the noise or certain tenants threatened to break their lease and move. Now it is said that the landlord
has never had any problems, no one is unhappy, etc. This proposed use was not accidentally left off
the list of permitted uses in this zone —a veterinary clinic without kennels is NOT a permitted use,
meaning you have to go outside the rules to use the property for this purpose.
Re-Rebuttal: Mark Mon roc said the information was furnished in response to questions regarding care
and operation of Dr. Bietti's facility as well as his reputation. The biggest issue Mere seems to be the
use of the outdoor area. Again, the only proposed use for the area is the walkingexereising of the
animals on a leash and if they make noise, they will be muzzled. Otherwise, this is an indoor use for a
professional office for Dr. Bi etti and his associate Drs.
Mike Hollibaugh addressed the Board stating that the commitments are enforceable. The Depart tent
has the ability to enforce the commitments and has legal support in the way of fines, etc., and can be
effective in policing and enforcing.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page 10 of 1
Chuck weinkauf asked Sylvia Peters if the retention pond is a part of the Lenox Trace property. Ms.
Peters responded in the negative.
rlene Plavchak asked 'if the smaller outside area could have a brick wall surrounding, such as
courtyard, or could the footprint of the building be moved so that the parking lot could buffer the
outside area. Also, the line of trees would have to be nature evergreen to visually screen all year long.
Chuck W ink f commented that ears would make e more noise than the dogs.
In response to questions from Leo Dierek an, Mark Monroe said that currently, Companion Animal
Hospital has a staff of 20 persons.
There was some discussion regarding a $500 /day fine if commitments were not kept, and perhaps
fines could be payable to the Parrs Department, no judges /court involved. John Molitor commented
this would be highly irregular and difficult to enforce —fines levied must be some sort of Court process
before a penalty could be assessed.
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dler kanan moved for approval of Docket No. 0404 18 UV, Carmel Science Technology
Park, Block 11, Lot 4, Companion Animal Hospital, seconded by Madeleine Torres; the vote taken
was 2 in favor, 3 opposed Dierclanan, Plavehak, Hawkins MOTION DENIED.
I. old Business.
i. Northwood ails, See 1, Lot 6 Easton Residence Special Use
Petitioner seeps a time extension approval for a Special Use to continue as a
commercial kennel use originally approved with conditions for a period of 18 month
on May 22, 2000, as Docket No. SU-19-00. The site is located at 6320 Northwood
Drive. The site is zoned S-1/Residence Low Density.
Filed by Gerald Evelyn Easton.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 24, 2004
Page l 1 of 1
.ferry Easton, 6320 Northwood Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board requesting an extension for
Special Use that would allow the continued use of his residence as a commercial kennel originally
approved for a period of 18 months on May 22, 2000.
Mr. Easton stated he currently has 7 dogs: two that are eight years old; one ten -gears old; one that is 14
gears old; two 15 year olds, and one that is 12 years old —one 1 year -old cried 30 days ago. Mr.
Easton asked to be allowed to keep the dogs until they die a natural death. Because of their age and the
fact that some of them have medical problems, these dogs would not be considered for adoption.
Mr. Easton objected to the classification of his situation as commercial kennel, since he and his wife
do not sell dogs, and they do not rare dogs to sell. The Eastons have taken in stray and mis- treated
dogs and have cared for there.
John Molitor advised Mr. Weinkauf that although this is not a public erring, the Board could ask for
public comments this evening. This particular use has been out of compliance with the Board's order
for close to ten months now.
Ir. Weinkauf asked if there were any members of the public in attendance that world like to speak; no
one appeared.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosie is A letter was received from the public and forwarded to
Board members.
Mr. weinkauf confirmed that the letter was received. Mr. weinkauf asked if the Eastons had taken on
any new animals.
Mike Hollibaugh responded that the Department has made periodic visits to the property and evaluated
the situation. The Department fund that the Eastons have made adaptations and allow minimal
numbers of dogs outside at any one tune. There is currently no large record of complaints from
neighbors.
Mr. weinkauf recommended that the Board allow the aston's request.
Leo Di rckman moved to extend the Provisions of May y 22, 2000 that were part of I Docket No. SLR -1
0o and due to expire July 2 2003 to July 28,, 2006. The motion was seconded by Earlene Plavchak
and APPROVED 5-0.
Mr. weinkauf commented the Department would be tracking this item and would be asking Mr.
Easton to appear again prior to the expiration date of the provisions specified.
Open Discussion Ensued
John Molitor reiterated that the Martin Marietta matter would be on the Board's Agenda for June. The
Department has discussed the possibility of setting a special meeting date, perhaps two weeks after the
June meeting, so that if the petition needs to be continued, a meeting date would already be established
and members would be available in July. It is likely that this meeting would take more than one hour
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appea
May 24,2004
Page 12 of 1
of the Board's tine. The Board may the petitioner and remonstrators for additional information to
be submitted.
Leo Dierekrnan asked if the Dep could present how the process works as far as violations and
fines, and how long it -would take to go through the processS Perhaps the Board could explore a way to
short circuit the process. There are those who go through the process and are granted a cgdons, but
there are those who just blatantly violate the process. Is there enough "teeth for the Department to
effectively do its job
Mike H olhbaugh responded that the Dep. I is working with the City Attorney on a ticketing
system that will allover compression of the feline o some of the enforcement and fine related issues.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the r epa rnent does not scour the community for v�oMons, unless
it is a public health, safety 'and w elfare i n we don't "head- hunt." The Department responds to
caUed-in complaints or e- mails. Regarding the issue of oommitments, it is better to have deft five
commitments so that the time -line is specified and can be enforced at the end of the tern,
Mr, Wininkauf referred to the issue of cell to wers a f ew years ago everyone cell phones and n
one wants towers. This ev n�ng, it was animal clinics. Everyone warms per, but no one wants an
imal hospital in their area until their pet is sick. where can, we put vetednary hospitals? It is
something for us to think about.
Leo Dierckman responded that there are locations that are totally appropriate for pet hospitals, but
declined to debate the vote this evening. We roust remember what we are trying to develop and make
it friendly for businesses to locate in Carmel nd in Carmel.
New Business,
None
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 PMO
Charles Wein FiesidInt