Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional Information: BZA 11-26-07 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer November 26, 2007 'Mrs. Torres stated that she lived in the neighborhood and was very aware of the property from both sides. She did not feel it would be a problem to anybody. Mrs. Torres APPROVED Docket No. 07100013 V Dunbar Accessory Structure. I. Old Business s 1 VVt i j (,C. C (2 s-e., The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:, Docket No. 07090005 V Section 3.07 Definitions ar�aia��t ��nals t =ion The site is located at 225 John Stre etand is zoned Rl/Residential. Filed. by Martina Bannon, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Martina-Bannon, owner. They would like to continue to keep the three chickens. They are laying hens that are kept in a clean chicken coop. They are healthy, clean and lay eggs. There are no threats to anybody. They are a lot of fun and very educational. Before they got the chickens, they talked to their neighbors on all sides. They were all quite happy with it and thought it was great. Suddenly there was inquiry about them and that is why she is seeking the variance. She has an eleven year old andhe thiriks-they are great. They are very educational and anybody that comes over enjoys them. They are not selling the eggs or chickens. This is not a business. They have no intentions for a rooster. It will be three laying hens. They are on the back of the property at the fence that borders Clay Terrace. They are almost behind the little barn on the property. A picture from the packet was indicated. They are far away from the neighbors and the houses. The coop borders the parking lot of Clay Terrace, so it is not even next to stores. Remonstrance: Karen Nedder, 167 Pearl Street..She thought John Street was in the same subdivision, Rolling Meadows. Her property is very unique. She has almost 1.5 acres and is surrounded by twelve neighbors. She has not heard the chickens from her house. She has.heard stories. When she has walked the dog, she has heard the chickens. She grew up with chickens.. They are great educational things. She was upset because when they moved here they had a lot of issues with their property: They were told they had to go by the law and read:the covenants. In the covenants it clearly states there shall be no farm animals. She would love a horse and thinks she has enough land for chickens and stuff like that. She was told they could not because the covenants clearly say no farm animals. She understands the covenants override, the City. Once they are allowed to have chickens, neighbors down the street will want a llama or something. The neighbors all knew what the covenants were corning in. She sees a problem, because if she wanted any other type of farm animal, she would be denied. She did not think it was fair. Plus they acquired the chickens before doing this process. There were rumors that there were roosters a one point and they were put down because of the loud noise. She did not know why all the other neighbors were not at the meeting unless they thought it would not pass. If this is allowed, who is to say she couldnot get a cow or some other animal which she would love. But she knows if she wants those animals, she would need to move to a location where the law says she could have those farm animals. If Ms: Bannon gets the chickens, she will be fighting for farm animals herself because she loves animals. She did not think it was fair because she has almost an acre and a half and she is only allowed to have, a.dog and cat, etc. When she had issues with the City, she always had to go by the book. She couldn't just get something and then try to get approval. She did not think it was fair and that it was going to cause a lot of issues with other neighbors having more land. She has the Page 2 of 5 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer November 26, 2007 biggest lot in the neighborhood. Even if her neighbors' would not mind about the animals, she would not do that because the covenants clearly state no farm animals. Sandra Johnson, 329 Stonehedge Drive. This was almost funny if it wasn't serious. The law is in place. The chicken coop should never have been built and the chickens gotten before this process. If Ms. Bannon is given permission to keep the chickens that means that it opens up a whole new avenue within the City of Carmel. How do you reject other people who want to have faun animals, if one is allowed to have them? They may keep their chicken coop very clean and the feed withifi dontrol. But if someone does not, there will be rats and mice. It would be opening up something with the City. Exaggerating-the point,`it would be almostlike she went out and got a pig or ducks and put them in her back yard. Then she would approach the City and ask permission because they like pork once a year and they slaughter once a year. It is against the _law within the City of Carmel to have' any farm animals and chickens are farm animals. Cindy Heimlicher, 344 Stonehedge. Ditto to previous statements. She was not here to be un- neighborly. She did not think there was any chance of this passing in a neighborhood in Carmel. But just in case, she thought she would be here. She felt it would open up who knows what in the neighborhood. She felt it was a nice neighborhood close to Clay Terrace and she would hate to see this opened to farm animals or anything else. If there's somebody who thinks they need a tiger, they could have that in their backyard or an alligator or whatever. Rebuttal: Ms. Bannon understood how everyone was feeling. She understands that once they do this then who knows. She kept hearing farm animal and she envisions cows, pigs, etc. They bought the little chicks around Easter time. At that point, they did not know if they would have a rooster. But they had an agreement with their closest neighbors that a rooster would go. It turned out one of them was a rooster and they got rid of it. They built the coop and Were very excited about having chickens, not knowing they were considered farm animals. She understands they cannot keep a cow in the back yard. They did not think this through, but were confident because they had talked with their closest neighbors and they had not objections. They do not intend to get anything else and she doubts anybody has any intention of getting any farm animals. She has lived there ten years and loves the neighborhood. She was surprised to hear from neighbors that -do not border their property or are close to it. She understood their concern. Mrs. Barton Holmes gave the Department Report: This would be a two -part process. The City Code and Zoning Ordinance both prohibit -keeping farm animals on a certain size parcel within City limits. There is also the issue of the covenants. If this were approved at this meeting, then the Petitioner would still need to go through the Homeowners Association for approval as well. Tonight would just be the variance froth the City Code and Zoning Ordinance. There are a number of properties throughout Carmel that do have farm animals on varying sizes of parcels. Several of the lots are non conforming. Either they have been farms for.years and things have just grown up around them or it is an instance where there are one or two acres and there are a few llamas or, a horse. It is something the City looks at on a case-by-case basis. It is something that would apply to anything that is considered farm animals. City Code includes cows, swine, chickens, horses, goats, sheep or ducks. She imagines they would include llamas in that category as well. In this instance they did some research with the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and some research on chickens. They found if the coop is well- maintained, then it is not likely to have a negative impact as far as smell,` germs, etc. As far as noise, if there are no roosters then the noise level is about the same decibel level as a conversational voice. The Department Page 3 of 5 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer November 26, 2007 felt that overall, considering there are only three chickens and if this will be limited to only three chickens and no roosters and no other animals, it is not likely to have an extremely negative impact on any of the adjoining properties. The Department recommended positive consideration of the request. r`' Mrs. Torres asked the Department and.Mr. Molitor to help her understand. The Carmel City Code, the Zoning Ordinance and their covenants all say no. Are they requesting this variance in the proper order or should they have checked with the covenants for the Homeowners first? t i Mr. Molitor stated there is not a Set. schedule for which one ought to go. first, but the subdivision covenants are a private agreement. That is a contract among all the property owners. The Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council cannot override the private-agreement. Subdivision covenants are designed to protect the value of the properties in that neighborhood: The City Zoning Ordinance and 1 City Code generally have more goals than that. It would have the objective to protect public health and 0 safety as well as property values. I. s. Torres asked if it goes beyond the BZA, then Ms. Bannon would still need to get approval from her HOA? Mr. Molitor confirmed the BZA could not do anything that would invalidate or override subdivision covenants. The existence of the covenants may be relevant to the decision as to whether or not the use and value of the property 'or neighborhood would be negatively affected. Mrs. Torres asked Ms. Bannon if she knew for sure that it stated no farm animals in the covenants and restrictions for the neighborhood. Ms. Bannon stated this was the first she &had heard about it. She was totally unaware. She thought the only thing was the steps with the City. She had not looked at the covenants and restrictions. Mr. Molitor stated that one of the difficulties of violation of covenants was that sometimes the property owners may have to go to court to enforce the covenants, not to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mrs. Torres confirmed that if she voted in favor or against this variance, Ms. Bannon would still need to go to her Homeowners Association. Mr. Molitor stated that if Mrs. Torres voted against the variance that would settle it as far as the City was concerned. It would continue to he a prohibited use in that zoning classification on that property. If Mrs. Torres were to approve the variance, it would not allow it to occur unless the neighbors agreed to it by amending the covenants or by agreeing to waive their rights under the covenant. Mrs. Torres asked Ms. Bannon if she was clear on this. Ms. Bannon stated she had no idea where to go from here. She was totally surprised. Mrs. Torres asked how long she had had the chickens, if the coop was already built, and where the chickens would go in the winter. Page 4 of 5 -1 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer November 26, 2007 Ms. Bannon stated they had had the chickens since April. They built the coop when they decided to get the chickens. There is an inside part to the coop just behind the barn. There is a roof over that part with a heat light with laying boxes. Mrs. Torres stated this is a non precedent setting body and that means just because they rule yes on one parcel of land, it does not mean that the entire neighborhood has free rule to do whatever they want to do. Nor does it mean they would approve future ones. This is an individual case that is looked at as an individual case. They do not look back and do not try to see into the future. They take them one by one. They needed an agreement there would be no more than three chickens, there would be chickens only and no sale or profit from these. She did not feel they were harming the public health, safety or morals to the neighborhood. She did not feel they were affecting the property values in the neighborhood. Mrs. Torres APPROVED Docket No. 07090005 V, Bannon Chickens for three chickens in the backyard. She informed Ms. Bannon she would need to approach her Homeowners Association for approval. Mr. Molitor pointed out there was a right to appeal the decision to the full Board. The appeal would need to be filed within fourteen days. The Remonstrators did not understand why they should have to appeal when the law says what it says. They do not have a Homeowners Association. Mrs. Torres stated that under the rules of the meeting, the meeting was now closed. There could be conversations outside of meeting, but the Public Hearing was closed. The Remonstrators could talk with the Petitioner or the Department, but the Hearing Officer was not allowed to partake in the conversations. The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM. Madeleine Torres,.Hearing Officer Connie Tingley, Secretary S: \Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Hearing Officer 2007 \20071126 Hearing Officer.rtf Page5of5