Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Wednesday, October 13, 2021 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 6:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Richard Miller opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Maria Andrews, Richard Miller, and Marlon Webb Members Absent: Stacy Risk Also Present: Jodi Dickey, AICP- Director of Development Services and Maggie Smith- Legal Counsel, Jenna Wertman, AICP- Senior Planner and Heather Wetzel, Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. August 9, 2021- Regular Meeting Motion: Richard Miller made a motion to APPROVE the August 9, 2021 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. None E. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. BZSE-09-21-1951 324 E. Main Street "Tattoo/Piercing Parlor" A request for a Special Exception Use approval from Art. 5 § 5.81 SE-01 Special Exception Standards as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.27 to permit a "Tattoo/Piercing Parlor" use within the Urban Commercial (UC) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-11-330-029.000-016 Represented by: Joshua Short, INKcorporated LLC ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Jodi Dickey told the Board there was a noticing issue with the newspaper. Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to CONTINUE BZSE-09-21-1951 to the November 8, 2021 regular meeting, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. BZDV-08-21-1943 113 Westbourne Drive Lot Coverage 1 of 5 A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.48(A)(3) L0-01: "Lot Standards," to increase the maximum lot coverage permitted as it relates to Art. 2 §2.08 of the Unified Development Ordinance Low Density Single-Family Residential (Rl) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-440-017.000-016 Represented by: Jason and Linda Ball, Homeowners ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Jenna Wertman presented the case stating this was a Development Standards variance and there were three Findings of Fact which included: The approval of the variance would not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare, the use and value of the area adjacent to subject property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in use of the property. She said the property was zoned Rl which allowed up to 25% lot coverage. This variance request was to go over that limit. The property was located in the Northridge subdivision and the owner wanted to install an 18 x 36 pool and patio surround. The neighborhood does not have a community pool. Staff noted that there were four previous similar variances requests throughout the neighborhood for pools. The public notice cited 30% lot coverage due to discrepancies in supporting information but Staff was using 28% coverage as the final number in their review. With the total improvements and changes, Staff felt the coverage would be 27.2%. If the Board would find in the petitioner's favor, Staff asked that there be a condition that they submit a correct, fully dimensioned site plan of all the existing and proposed improvements prior to dfJf.JrUVdl Lu e11!:>ure cu111µlid11ce wil11 lhe variance as what they submitted was not complete. Staff felt since the pool included an automatic cover and fencing it would not going to cause concern to the health, safety, morals and general welfare. The Applicant noted that the use and value would not be affected as it was consistent with others in the neighborhood, had a fence around it for safety, and did not have those louder features such as a diving board. The third criteria was the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. Ms. Wertman said the definitions in the UDO cites two specific cases such as a tree blocking the only place where a detached garage could go and they would need a setback variance, something that was practical to the site that was causing the need for the variance. The Applicant noted in their statement that there was not a community pool in the neighborhood and that the strict terms of the ordinance would eliminate their ability to use their property in this manner. Ms. Wertman agreed there were some practical difficulties on the petition but did not think all of them were the result of the ordinance itself. A strict application did create a difficulty for installing the pool that they've chosen. In addition, they didn't choose the size of their home in comparison to the land so there were a few things that were outside their control. However appeared to be other pools with similar features that could reduce or eliminate the need for the variance, whether that was a smaller pool or a pool made by other manufacturers. Staff did not feel that necessarily indicated a practical difficulty arising from something peculiar to the lot itself or the ordinance. For those reasons she did not feel it met the strict application of the ordinance. She did not feel criterion number three was met and recommended denial of the variance. If the Board was able to find in the petitioners favor, she would like to see a more formal site plan. Marlon Web asked if Staff was amenable with those conditions and Ms. Wertman said it was up to the Board as they were ultimately the ones determining if the Applicant had met the criteria. Richard Miller noted the increase in lot coverage could impact drainage and asked if there had been any drainage concerns in the neighborhood. Ms. Wertman was not aware of any. She said this neighborhood was built to similar standards as another where there was a lot coverage case and the stormwater engineer felt it would not cause much impact given the type of improvements. 2 of 5  Applicant Jason Ball wanted to first state he disagreed with the elevated deck being included in the lot coverage calculations as it was not impervious. He stated that there were approximately 35% of homes in his neighborhood that had similar plots and homes and also had pools. They purchased the home with the hope to put a pool in and had already invested almost $7,000 and materials that were custom made and not returnable. He said he had invested almost $35,000 in upgrades for his home this year and asked that those things be taken into consideration. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Paul Whalen, 116 Westbourne Dr. was a neighbor of Mr. Ball and said his improvements had enhanced the value of the neighborhood asked for approval of the variance. Maria Andrews asked if the Staff recommendation for denial was because of the wooden deck. Ms. Wertman said no. the deck did count as part of lot coverage as it was an accessory structure. Anything covering the footprint and adding to that counts as lot coverage, which was relayed to Mr. Ball in an email by another Staff member. She felt it did not meet the strict application as there was nothing peculiar on the site itself that would necessitate the lot coverage variance. She understand they have purchased a pool and materials, and that had been done prior to permitting and approval but there were not practical difficulties with the site itself. Mr. Miller said he did not have concerns with item three. He felt the lot was small for the Rl standards and felt that was a practical difficulty. Mr. Webb said based on the information presented he did not have a problem with the variance. He did agree with Staff that the Applicant provide a complete site plan. Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-08-21-1943 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 2. BZDV-08-21-1944 Ronald Reagan Logistics Park Lots 3 & 4 Access. Structure Side Yard Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.63(C)(2) SB-01: "Setback Standards" as it relates to Article 2, §2.40 of the Unified Development Ordinance; to encroach upon the accessory structure side yard setback within the High Intensity Industrial (12) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-18-200-005.000-016 Represented by: Shaun Cofer, Scannell Properties, LLC ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Jenna Wertman said the same Findings of Fact applied to this case. This request was for a portion of the Ronald Reagan Logistics Park where the petitioner was requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 20' to 5' for a Lot 3 and 4. The proposal was to build one industrial building on each lot that were approximately 168,000 to 169,000 square feet. She showed the two site plans to give an idea of the location and overall plan. Reviewing the Findings of Fact she said the health, safety, morals and general welfare would not be affected as the reduction does not impact any required buffering on the site. It only affects the amount of seeded grass between the two sites. They noted it would not impact safety or maneuverability, and there was significant landscaping and buffering on the other sides of the site. Buffering, such as to the residential to the east, was not impacted by this variance. Staff noted that the encroachment allows the properties to be used in a similar manner that was consistent with the industrial park. Strict application would eliminate the ability to use one of the sites for some of the major uses in the industrial park and potentially force it to be more of an office. The design of the building was already significantly smaller than the rest of the buildings and reducing it further would create 3 of 5 dysfunctional floor layouts and that would likely restrict the use of the property. Staff felt there was sufficient evidence to support their request that the strict application could result in practical difficulty. They could place two buildings on one lot instead of subdividing it and would not be required to have setbacks in between them at all so it was like a penalty for dividing lots. Staff also noted that the lots were designed with only one truck parking area and then employee parking so there was not a lot that could be taken off. Ms. Wertman said there were very specific industry standards for distribution and warehouse projects that determined the needed width for stalls aisles and internal building equipment maneuverability. Staff felt they met all three criteria and recommended approval of the development standards variance with the condition that the variance only applies to the south property line of Lot 3 and the North property line of Lot 4. Richard miller asked if reducing the setback would have any impact on lot coverage and learned it should not as it was a small area in the grand scheme of the setbacks and buffer yards on the east and west especially. Justin Olashuk, American Structurepoint, represented the Applicant Scannell and had a brief PowerPoint presentation. The site was in the overall Ronald Reagan Logistics Park on the southern end. The site was about 28.5 acres and would have roughly 169,000 square foot industrial warehouse buildings. They were requesting that the setback be reduced to 5' for the accessory structure of the trailer parking stalls. That would apply only to the south property line of Lot 3 and the north of Lot 4. The waiver request would allow them to construct the trailer parking stalls on both Lot 3 & 4 which was a typical requirement of the tenants looking to lease or purchase the industrial warehouse buildings. He showed an exhibit noting where the encroachment would take place between the two lots. It would be about 15' of trailer stalls on each side and the encroachment would be split equally between Lots 3 and 4. As mentioned, the approval of the development standards variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare the welfare of the community. The proposed setback reduction would only impact the perimeter and would not impact any of the perimeter buffering that was required. The only thing that would be placed in this area would be seeded grass. No plantings would be proposed in this area. The proposed encroachment would have no impact on the maneuverability of vehicles inside the site due to the fact that it was on the backside of a parking stall. So the interior movements were not affected by this request. They did have substantial buffering requirements due to less intense adjacent uses so they had significant landscape plantings and screening berms around the perimeter of the site. The deviation from the standards would not be noticeable to neighbors around the property. He showed a landscaping exhibit to show how anything happening inside the property would not be visible to the adjacent properties. The use and value of the area adjacent and subject property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. This reduction was occurring in lots internal to the industrial park so it would not have any impact to any of the required buffers. The setback would be reduced equally on each lot to ensure use and value of each slot was maintained. As for the practical difficulties, reducing the building width to less than 260' would create an issue with the internal racking layouts that were typically required for these warehouse uses. They would become functionally inefficient and would eliminate the ability to market it as this industrial use like the other uses in the park could. Similarly, eliminating trailer stalls would reduce the marketability of one of those lots. It would significantly reduce the tenant pool to those not relying on truck traffic. Eliminating the trailer stalls and just one lot would create inequality between the two lots, making one more marketable and valuable than the other. With that, he would address any questions that the Board may have. Richard Miller thanked the Applicant for discussing the internal racking as that was one of his questions. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 4 of 5  Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-08-21-1944 conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. None I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services Ms. Dickey told the Board the Council would be naming a new member as Chris Worley would be joining Town Council. As Mr. Worley was the President, Vice-President Miller would become President and the Board would need to elect a new vice President. Since the full Board was not present that would be held at the next meeting. She said Staff and Legal were working on finalizing the Rules of Procedure to make sure they aligned well with the Advisory Plan Commission . 2. 2022 BZA Meeting Dates Ms. Dickey noted that the February meeting was on Valentine's Day and the October date was moved to a Wednesday due to Columbus Day. Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to APPROVE the 2022 Meeting Dates, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained . J. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. None K. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. None L. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 6:40 P.M. Richard Miller, President ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Administrative Assistant 5 of 5