HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MAY 29, 2012
1. (V)Brookshire Pines,Lot 235,Patio Roof.
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 12040024 V ZO Chptr. 7.04.03D : rear yard setback
The site is located at 4579 Lockerbie Court. The site is zoned R-1/Residential. The minimum rear yard setback is
20 feet and the petitioner is requesting a roof over the existing patio which will only be setback 10 feet. Filed by
Gayle Carlson, owner.
Z,;`,,,...,, ' ` ",gig `'1� � . ;4 t\ E General Info:
r, - The Petitioner requests approval to construct
`',t ; .: " a roof over his existing concrete patio in his
= -T. y 1 yi=p back yard. The roof, which is considered a
Y = � A' structure, will only be setback about 10 feet
.y =t %' g `1%` . from the rear property line and 20 feet is
�', b.nk � P p Y
f = s � � ��� required.
a" " 1 e oz, c—�f , '' 4
r '
.R �'�, :,� .��+ J,% \' ' Analysis:
f
�,,�. `�--�, ,y G - yt °,y -../ `��,, , The department is in support of this variance
�' \=,. request as we believe it will not be
,k,,' � ' rf J ✓ >� ; detrimental to the surrounding properties.
,,,,, ,,,,, - ."'' �i�. dip
it
J �p �, r The construction of a roof is a minor addition
N 't y. a� z . .�; lk 4 �' Y to the home. The petitioner is not proposing
�° , p p p g
;. l ,;'1&'.'r . ,!`", �` `� to fully enclose the patio with walls or
.; ..a: 4 ,. � �� screens, and so the encroachment into the rear
__.., . .'_7 /l '_?,-r. As' `" yard will not have as great of an impact as a
fully enclosed structure. The unique shape of
the lot does not allow for a very deep backyard,thereby causing some difficulty to the petitioner. Please see the
petitioner's information packet for more details.
Findings of Fact
1. The approval of these variances will not be injurious to the public health,safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community because: only a roof is being proposed over an existing patio and not a full addition to
the residence.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner because: only a roof is being proposed and the rest of the patio will still be open
air. This will also improve the view of the patio and should not adversely affect the surrounding area.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because:the shape of this lot is unique and makes enjoyment of their patio
difficult without a roof.
Recommendation:
After all comments and concerns have been addressed,the Dept. of Community Services recommends positive
consideration of Docket No. 12040024 V.
1
I